Comments by "Gonken88" (@Gonken88) on "Sabine Hossenfelder"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NinjaMonkeyPrime No, what I'm saying is that FE society has managed to convince people even though it's "as simple as that". Most people wouldn't be able to produce your example themselves, they just know that the earth is round.
It's common knowledge that the earth is round but that doesn't mean people in general can prove it by using any examples or arguments other than that it's just common knowledge. That's why they're convinced by anyone who can produce arguments that sounds valid.
You misinterpret my argument then. The average IQ in many places is a few points above 100. The people who are in that spectrum don't figure things out for themselves - they're told what's right and then they learn that. Had they been told the earth was flat in school, it would be very hard to convince them otherwise.
And I never said that being able to ask questions made them "smart", I just said that the people who are a liiittle bit smarter than the average (which still isn't "smart", though smarter than the moron millions) dare to question the general consensus. You're forgetting that people like Galileo Galilei actually were that kind of people - they dared to question the general consensus of that time, namely that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Something that caused an outrage back then, but it's a fact that most geniuses in our time have been free thinkers who didn't care much about public opinion on them. It's open mind vs narrow mind - whether you're right or wrong is a different topic. People may well understand arguments but have never been subjected to them or have forgotten them over time and aren't necessarily stupid because of it. I think you're almost acting bigoted when talking about these people. Very unecessesary.
Then you misquoted me and only quoted half of my argument which is a pretty shitty tactic to use, but it's usually evidence of someone trying to adjust the argument to fit his already thought out counter argumemt. I said "The point isn't whether the earth is flat or round, but rather that this society of people have managed to produce false evidence believable enough to make a large number of "round earthers" believe in it." which is what we're talking about as I never tried to claim that the earth is flat, I'm merely contemplating how a society filled with people with low scientific knowledge can produce arguments that actually convince people. If you just want to tell me why the earth is round in a condescending manor then I think you've misunderstood my whole point. They've all been brainwashed in public schools and they should have very little reason to start this "research" on their own, that's why I firmly believe that this is a theory thought up by people who do understand the science, and know how to confuse gullible people with a poor understanding of science. It's just that whenever people like you engage in this subject you go at it in almost an aggressive defensive manor to just point out how incredibly stupid this idea is. I know that a lot of people in the scientific community suffers from mild social handicaps which names are on YTs new nono-list, and as I put my efforts into "social studies" like psychology and political science instead I usually tend to focus more on the human part than on the science which I find more or less uninteresting. I'm sure the earth is round and that you know the physics behind it, you don't have to explain that part or become upset. I will simply ignore any further arguments explaining why the earth is round since I am not questioning that. The easier it is to prove the more it proves that people who don't understand it would struggle to put any kind of false evidence together themselves, which was my point.
Then I see you counter argued the second half of my argument saying that they're not many at all. Well that's subjective because I think they are more now than they've been in many years, wouldn't you agree? I don't remember any sort of flat earth society in the 90s or early 00s, it's a rather new thing. And it's rather interesting that you seem to put anti establishment and flat earthers in the same "category", because that's kind of the basis of the point I tried to make. If you think that it's stupid to be anti establishment that's up to you. I don't know how politically active you've been but I was active in my country's "conservative" party for some years only to learn a bunch of things that made me abandon mainstream politics all along. Very interesting though, and talk about making an argument for your oponent right there. Flat earther = anti establishment = stupid. There's a lot to be said about that from a psychological standpoint 👍.
Interesting comparison with Bakker, but again I think it's easier to con people who are just a few points above the average moron, as they're the one's who dare to question common knowledge and also think they're smart, just because they're a little bit smarter than the average. You seem to think that smarter than average = genius, why I do not know, but let's remember that people with an IQ of 108 are still not very smart. I'm saying that you must understand the arguments to be fooled.
So you are trying to argue that general increase of intelligence has brought forward better technology? You don't think that the technical evolution comes down more to the market economy than to the average person becoming smarter? There are statistics showing how average IQ has decreased and is keeping to do so in most places, Sweden for instance is dangerously low 100, which is the point where it becomes impossible to sustain democracy. This negative trend has in recent years been "slowed down" by lowering the demands for passing grades in schools which of course only looks good on paper. One would think a person like you would use this as an argument as to why FE society exists.
Again, you think the "advancements" comes down to the evolvement of the average person rather than that a few chosen ones are sitting on top dictating reality. According to you the big companies are making use of whole nations' collected brain power to bring forward the latest tech, rather than using a few bright minds and the media to make people buy more new tech that they don't need and get further in debt than they already are. Do I perhaps detect a slight bit of denial in you when talking about this? Not a fun subject to think about for any of us.
My point wasn't that FE isn't stupid, I'm usually trying to be more objective and open minded than to label people of any beliefs or opinion. My point was that I don't think they came up with their arguments within the community, as I think a lot of them lack the ability to produce such in a way that would convince so many. Again, "many" is subjective, I know they're not a majority, but enough to have caused a pretty big ruckus within the scientific community. One only has to make one search on YT to find this to be true - there are more vids from angry science-people these days than there are actual FE vids as far as I can tell. I think it's psychological warfare that I think has served its purpose on you, which I think you showed, and I'm good with that. I'm sure that you don't agree at all, and that's also fine, you're free to come back however you please, but I'd appreciate if you didn't copy and paste everything I've written and respond to each part as if it was a conversation, it becomes so much more text than what you've produced and that's the only text I'm interested in. I understand which and what you're replying to, don't worry. And if you're quoting just to make some kind of "impolite" remark then I'm neither interested nor impressed, let's keep it civil.
And to clarify: I am not a flat earther so please don't try to convince me that the earth isn't flat as it is a waste of time.
1
-
1
-
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Yes they were drawn to a scam. You suffice with concluding that, I'm asking why they were scammed and who really scammed them. Kind of like investigating journalism.
You think most people can use the sunset to prove that the earth is round? Hasn't the flat earthers a reaponse to why the sun is rising and setting? I'd say most people would argue like that third guy that's here talking who nobody's talking to, I think he's a good representation of average. That's the kind of argument I'm used to seeing at least. You know, that doesn't mean that everyone knows, and it's pretty self evident that you're above average intelligence. Wouldn't guess by how much though.
You're using the fact that it's a possibility for everybody as an argument saying everybody could or would have that idea. They can't and won't. Look around YT comment sections and look specifically for people literally asking random strangers for facts about events, science etc and taking hear-say as a fact. That's how the average dummy finds info in this day and age. No question is too stupid either and as long as the person who replies is kind it's probably true.
You say the reason is they want to "rage against the machine" and FE is the way to do that, or the other examples you're mentioning? Isn't that again a perfect example of the kind of generalization I was referring to in my previous reply? I'm sure you've said something about that further down, I'm writing as I read. This is clearly an assumption on your behalf, it might be wrong, it might be right - probably varies from case to case. I understand why you assume that it is that way, it goes in line with your prejudice against these people, and I don't accept bigotry as an argument myself. These are all individuals with their own reasons for believing what they believe in. Making a generalizing assumption like that is no different than saying that all people of a certain religion are inherently greedy or that some types of people are more prone to commit crimes. There may even be statistics supporting those claims in some cases, but that kind of "arguments" are usually thrown out on principle. It is your opinion that they're raging against the machine.
About the "flat earth in school" you didn't do a very good job countering that I must say. It goes without saying that if the fact that the earth was flat was taught in schools that would also be the general accepted consensus thus there wouldn't be any serious news outlets showing things that would prove otherwise. Like I've already said the FE community have their own version of how and why the sun sets and had you never been subjected to anything else I find it very hard to believe that someone of your "norm personality type" would be one of the people questioning this. You question it now because of the things you know and have learned, hardly due to your own experience and research. And if you do then that pretty much makes you unique I'd say. Most people just crack the bindings of a book or watch a doc these days.
Well Galileo fought the establishment at the time, didn't he? Society was different but the situation was the same - people mindlessly going along vs one man who raised his voice. What, you don't think you're fed lies through the media and political establishment these days? On a different scale? You seriously think you get first hand accounts and all the facts on every major event or on all international politics these days? You don't think Assange and Snowden are the Galileis or Voltaires of our time? It's up to you if you're happily watching the evening news thinking that you're updated on everything that's going on and why. Not gonna imply anything about that.
It's rather you who shouldn't rip words apart to make them fit your pre-thought out counter arguments, as I already said. That just means you can't respond to my arguments, and implying that your opponents arguments are dumb or whatever when you can't answer them without tweaking them is not a good way to argue. You'd just have to take one rhetoric class to learn that.
Very unimpressed by your ctrl+c "because they're anti-establishment" that then pops up again when I asked how a society filled with people with low scientific knowledge can come up with arguments that convince people. I watched some of their vids on YT back in the days before they got deleted, and I literally saw people in the comment section who were amazed at the arguments put forward in the presentations. To just assume that they were "anti establishment" and ate it up because of that seems a bit far fetched. Circular logic almost "Flat earthers are anti establishment and they convinced people because they are anti establishment". Not very convincing mate. I'd say they convinced people who were open minded though maybe didn't have the scientific knowledge enough to immediately debunk the theories in their own heads. Some might have gone "I knew it, they've tricked us!" but to generalize like that - nah, bigot mindset.
What, you don't think school is brainwashing? Whether you percieve me as an adult or not is completely irrelevant to me, I don't give a crap about ad hominem tactics. School doesn't just teach us math and science or to read and write, it shapes us into "persons" instead of just human beings. You think people would be so alike if they weren't actually brainwashed to a certain extent? You don't think you're brainwashed when you watch TV? Most of everything you know, think and do is due to some extent of brainwashing. Human beings are supposed to hunt, fish, grow crops, cattle, raise families etc, those are the things that naturally makes us happy and gives us a sense of meaning. Now people use all kinds of tech and medication to forget how utterly unhappy they are with lives that are filled with crap that has 0 meaning, but they still chase after it, and you don't think they're brainwashed? Take some psychology classes.
Well the fact that you people get overly upset with this subject was hardly to say whether it's stupid or not, it was merely to point out the unproportional reaction to it. But now you've subjectively pointed out how you feel about it and then I guess it's understandable from a human standpoint. But again you took something out of context to make an unecessary point based on your own opinion.
Again more about the sunset, and again; I'm not here to be convinced. I'm here asking how a non scientific society with mostly morons could come up with arguments disproving this to a point where this became a movement. I know your answer already; they're anti establishment. Don't see the relevance though.
And I don't think anyone "wants to be fooled", that's just cynical of you, but that seems to be a common thread here. I don't buy this at all, nobody "wants" to be fooled. There's a poor understanding, yes, but who came up with the arguments convincing them?
But before you argued that humans were progressing and therefore we have also seen all this progression in technology and you seemingly draw = between technological progress and humans becoming smarter in general - but if humans aren't becoming smarter (which we aren't) in general it comes down to the schools according to you, though the schools have had to lower their demands on students to pass the grades since the old ones were too high for the new kids, and out of this comes all our technological progress? Hm, sounds to me that you're a bit stuck in your way of thinking. I'd dare to say that average human intelligence has had absolutely 0 to do with the technological advancements that have been made, and you'd struggle to prove otherwise. We don't exactly work together you know, even if we actually were becoming smarter.
Well I'm making "drama" about avg IQ since we're talking about people being fooled en masse here. Seems kind of obvious. I don't know if you realize the difference between 90 and 110? Have you tried out your own at someplace like Mensa to see where you score? Also you were implying that people are becoming smarter and as a result we have all this nice tech, which actually was a pretty ridiculous argument as the avg intelligence obviously have nothing to do with the evolvement of technology. It's also funny how you seem to think that how to "live longer" is an elitist issue in a world which needs to decrease its population by half in 20 years. That actually goes pretty well in line with the old agenda21 though that's been replaced with 2030 now, but I think 2050 was the marker for the decrease back then. I don't question your ability when it comes to proving that the earth is round though I conclude that you are absolutely clueless when it comes to the future use of tech and what this means for most of us.
So I am wrong when I say that I'm not trying to say that FE isn't stupid. Interesting. Double negation probably fooled your eyes or something.
Then some opinions from you on what I should or shouldn't be when it comes to open mindedness, of course I should be a bigot like you and think like you, you almost didn't have to tell me that.
1
-
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Google is getting tired of conspiracies so they use censorship? That's pretty interesting, it's always good to hear what the other side has to say about global corporations having monopoly on the truth. Well the decrease in population is a very real and true issue these days, if you believe otherwise it's due to low general understanding of global politics. Whether 5G is the kicker or not we'll just have to wait and see, but that fact that certain tech moguls have made huge donations to certain medical research just a couple of years before a global pandemic is hardly news or a lie. I remember when he recieved status as a philantropist for donating a bunch of money to vax research and I instantly said that there's some kind of untold interest behind it, but what that is we'll just have to wait and see won't we? Must be very comforting to be able to just blindly trust these people whose influence is spreading out around us and just use the MSM as a source for information. You know what? I think you're the excellent proof of my personal theory of this FE bullcrap being put out there so that people like you would disregard "the other stuff" as the same thing. It's working if that's the case.
Then you say you have to copy and paste everything to be able to adress each point - I think I've disproved this theory twice now. I think it's more like this: You're having troubles producing and sort of coherent arguments for your thesis, so you have to pick out pieces of mine and counter them aggressively one at a time in that short and frankly overall pretty opinionated way you're arguing. It's not that hard to just say "no" or "wrong" and then give a little excuse to why you disagree and then call that a fact. It's obvious that you're not open in the slightest to anything that challenges your world view and you defend it with such arrogance it's really a dull experience to have this conversation with you. My choice though, no question.
And regarding who came up with this conspiracy, I realize that your imagination may be too limited to come up with anything other than "that". I'm saying that this is a conspiracy that was put out there by some people higher up in society, not to make people think that the earth is flat, but to make people like you think that everyone who believes in some kind of conspiracy is an idiot - and they've succeeded, you're absolute proof of that by the way you put an = between FE and all the other conspiracy theories out there. It's a double bluff and no matter how smart you think you are or how much common sense you think you have, you swallowed the hook. And I'm not making fun of you for that, on the contrary I've tried to have a respectful conversation with you. To no avail I think it's safe to say. Your mind will probably never be opened. Unless some of the shit that's expected to happen within the 20s actually happen and it becomes a fact in your face, but chances are the media will convince you otherwise anyway. Who knows?
And I'm not arguing your little end paragraph, a little math is all it takes. Too bad a lot of people hate math and rather get political. Math is probably the only thing that has avoided becoming political. Science hasn't avoided it, that's for sure.
1