DOCSLIB.ORG

“No Room for Thinking, Under the Dome”. Flat Earth and the Boundary Construction Between Science and Non-Science on Twitter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“No Room for Thinking, Under the Dome”. Flat Earth and the Boundary Construction Between Science and Non-Science on Twitter “No room for thinking, under the dome”. Flat earth and the boundary construction between science and non-science on Twitter. Luca Carbone, ANR: 416453, SNR: 2013251 Abstract: With few exceptions, most of human history since the sixth century B.C. has been guided by the belief that the earth is round. Nevertheless, in recent times, the view proposing a flat earth has increased in popularity. Drawing from the literature about boundaries and boundary-work from Gyerin and Abott, this study aims at exploring how the boundaries between those defending science and non-science are constructed in public space. Given that the Flat Earth Society (FES) is almost uniquely present online, the normative power of defining knowledge cannot be evaluated in its core dimensions – through argumentations in scientific journals. For this reason, the periphery of science, its connections with the public and the narratives adopted on Twitter, is the principal avenue where I study the acquisition of normative and classification power to define knowledge systems. Based on a qualitative content analysis, this paper shows that FES supporters and adversaries are heterogeneous in the argumentations held to sustain their positions, something that complicates the general view of these groups as homogeneous groups. Based on a network analysis I analyze the boundaries between supporters and adversaries of the theory that the earth is flat. The boundary between these two factions appears to be mostly defined by FES adversaries through framing strategies such as debasement and homogenization of FES supporters. The results show how communication defines social and normative boundaries between science and non-science. At the end of the paper, I discuss the relevance of these findings for theories about the constructivist nature of science. Introduction With few exceptions, most of human history since the sixth century B.C. has been guided by the belief that the earth is round (Russell, 1997). Nevertheless, in recent times, the view proposing a flat earth has gained momentum, generating hypotheses, theories, experiments, and, in the end, a global movement amounting to 72.5 thousand followers on Twitter, now called Flat Earth Society (FES). Despite the scientific consensus around the shape of the Earth, the debate on this issue is thriving in the wider society1. This raises many questions about the reasons, modalities, and mechanisms through which discrepancies between science and non-science take shape. Two quotations from FES’ supporters might give an idea of the heterogeneous positions that could be found in this type of relationship. “Can anybody confirm what 'gravity' is please? ��� didn't think so. Keep spending tax payers money working on that explanation though ��� #wasteofmoney #flatearth #wakeup #thetruthisoutthere” “#Atheist #Globies �: #HappySabbath �: #Research #Biblical #FlatEarth % Psalms 96:10 (#KJV) Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously. #CatholicTwitter : #NASA &” The two positions have different points of departure to sustain the same view: while the former expresses distrust toward the scientific establishment and the impossibility to make a claim without first-hand experiences, the skepticism of the second comes from a religious branch of the movement, where the claim that the earth is flat derives from the Bible. These tweets highlight two fundamental problems in the scientific literature about the discrepancy between science and non-science. The first regards the view that non-science is internally homogeneous (Harambam & Aupers, 2015, 2016), while the second remarks the neglection of questions about who holds the classificatory power to demarcate systems of knowledge (Agrawal, 1995, 2002). Regarding the first issue, Harambam and Aupers (2015, 2016) point to the limits that academic works on conspiracy theories (CT) have in conceiving them as a dysfunctional product of society, the fruit of paranoia, bad science or religious beliefs. This leads to a preemptive portrayal of CT as devoid of any agency or project, as a monolithic and homogeneous entity. Challenging this approach, the authors show not only the presence of different reasons, worldviews, and practices among the same CT, but also different ways in which their proponents define themselves, as critical 1 https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas-flat-earth-movement-appears-to-be-growing, https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-rise-of-the-flat-earthers/, https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/looking-for-life-on-a-flat-earth 2 thinkers instead of conspiracy theorists, for example. The homogeneous depiction of non-scientific efforts by science is also detectable for FES. A quick search in Google Scholar or Web of Science shows the lack of scientific articles addressing Flat Earth Society as phenomenon of interest. When addressed, it represents a negative metaphor to ask questions like “Are we at risk of becoming members of the Flat Earth Society by continuing to use scientifically inaccurate terminology?” (Nelson, 2014, p. 190) FES becomes the archetype for everything that is inaccurate and non-scientific. With regard to the second issue, the general category of non-science constitutes the negative counterpoint of science, something that establishes a normative classificatory system. This dichotomization hides a more variegated group: not only the macro category of non-scientific disciplines encompasses a variety of subcategories, such as conspiracy theories, alternative forms of knowledge, and para-disciplines. Each subcategory is a particular milieu in itself, including and binding together different ideas and positions. Moreover, within the group of non-scientific fields, there are categories whose definition is externally attributed, such as those with the attached labels of para-scientific and alternative (to science). This makes science a benchmark against which every other form of knowledge is measured, something that can be attributed to its cultural authority (Gauchat, 2011). Does FES undergo the same normative classificatory process? In order to address this question, it should first be asked under which type of non-science it is possible to classify FES. According to their online forum, “The Flat Earth Society has dedicated itself to starting science afresh from the ground up, to begin to see the world without bias and assumption. Experiment and experience has shown that the earth is decidedly flat. Time and time again through test, trial, and experiment, it has been shown that the earth is not a whirling globe of popular credulity, but an extended plane of times immaterial.”2 Moreover, FES sustains the idea of a conspiracy promoted by “NASA, its constituents and fellow so-called ‘space agencies’; as well as those who are informed by them (including government)”3 which are blamed for actively faking space travels. The reasons for this behavior are unknown; however “financial profit is the most commonly assumed motive.”4 Another idea is that because NASA has never been able to really go “any farther than the edge of the atmosphere, [t]he earth is portrayed as round in NASA media because the general public already believes that it is round.”3 Finally, “The US Government and its European allies have a large interest in investing untold millions of dollars into hoaxing space travel because it gives a superior image to the rest of the world.”3 2 https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=HomePage 3 https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The%20Conspiracy 4 https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Motive%20of%20the%20Conspiracy 3 From this brief overview of how the official FES website presents itself to the online public, it is possible to categorize this movement as a conspiracy theory against scientific institutions, justified by their involvement with political and financial powers. This is in line with the definition provided by Sustein & Vermeule (2009, p. 205), for whom conspiracy theories are “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished).” Nevertheless, flat-earthers do not reject the scientific procedures of experiments and empirical evidence as tools to explain reality; rather, they bring them to their extreme consequences, for which only those able to see in the first person, know. In this sense, the Mertonian value of communism, for which scientists are asked to share their findings to the whole community, does not hold in their mentality, since it is outclassed by an extreme individualism. On the other hand, though, universalism (scientists evaluate findings according to preestablished impersonal criteria), disinterestedness (scientists do not have other motivations than the pure will of knowing), and organized skepticism (scientists do not dogmatically accept claims) are maintained and erected as lynchpins of their view. FES constitutes a peculiar example of how the distinction between science and non-science might be more subtle than generally portrayed in the scientific literature. Even if science is generally recognized for its adherence to certain values, for example, they are not necessarily its prerogative, and other entities can hold similar positions. Focusing on a specific movement, FES, instead of on a more general concept such as that of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Earth Is Flat! Exploring the Mental Models of the Solar System in the Foundation Phase K
    THE EARTH IS FLAT! EXPLORING THE MENTAL MODELS OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM IN THE FOUNDATION PHASE K. Nthimbane1, S. Ramsaroop2 & F. Naude3 University of Johannesburg [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT- This paper aims at describing the changes in the mental models that foundation phase learners construct about the relationships between the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. A series of clinical interviews were conducted with Foundation phase learners at a primary school in Soweto, Johannesburg, to elicit their thinking in relation to the shape, colour and relative positions of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. The participants in this study consisted of 10 grade R and 10 grade three learners. Learners constructed their representations of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon using clay. From this, their intuitive ideas about colours and shapes of these objects became evident. The question this research asks is: “How do learners’ concepts of the relationships between the Earth, Moon, and Sun change throughout the foundation phase?” Data was collected through interviews and video recordings and was analyzed using open coding. The findings revealed that there is a marked change between the flat Earth models that are prevalent with the grade R sample and the spherical depictions made by the grade 3 learners. The findings further show that despite the changes in representations of the shape of the Earth, most learners still hold a geocentric model of the solar system. The authors recommend that foundation phase teachers use the protocol that was developed for these interviews as a means to establish the intuitive theories that children hold before attempting to teach content relating to weather, seasons, day/night cycles and the solar system.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity and the Flat Earth These Three Movements Have More in Common Than They Like to Acknowledge
    Scientific Creationism, Geocentricity and the Flat Earth These three movements have more in common than they like to acknowledge Robert Schadewald Evolution is a scientific fairy-tale just as the "flat-earth theory" was in the 12th century. —Edward Blick, scientific creationist1 Poor flat-earthers! Few modern intellectual movements have been so widely scorned and misunderstood. Among Christians, religious tolerance and ecumenicalism seem to break down at the edge of the earth. The opening quotation suggests the contempt that most "scientific creationists" feel for the flat-earthers. Comparing them to evolutionists is an especially low blow, since the flat-earthers have always been in the forefront of the battle against evolution. Though flat-earthism is as well-supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, the creationists plainly do not want to be associated with flat-earthers. In a public debate with creationist Duane Gish, paleontologist Michael Voorhies suggested that the Creation Research Society resembled the Flat Earth Society. According to a report of the debate published in the creationist newsletter Acts & Facts, Gish replied that not a single member of the Creation Research Society was a member of the Flat Earth Society and that Voorhies's linking of the two was nothing more than a smear.2 Gish's remarks brought a rejoinder in the Flat Earth News from an outraged letter writer (identified only as "G.J.D.") who had read the Acts & Facts report. "G.J.D."contested Gish's claim that no members of the Flat Earth Society belong to the Creation Research Society, concluding, "He doesn't know what he's talking about, as I belong to both, and I am writing to him to let him know that he is wrong."3 Ironically, Gish may have created a fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Novel Biophysical Information Transfer Mechanisms (Nbit)(U)
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D.C. 20505 10 April 2018 Mr. John Greenewald, Jr. 27305 W. Live Oak Road Suite #1203 Castaic, CA 91384 Reference: F-2018-01307 Dear Mr. Greenewald: This is a final response to your 3 April 2018 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received in the office of the Information and Privacy Coordinator on 4 April 2018, for the following document: Parapsychology and AI Research Report, 75-11096. We conducted a search of our previously released database and located the document you requested, consisting of 118 pages. Because you are entitled to the first 100 pages free and the remaining amount would be minimal, there is no charge for processing your request. If you have any questions regarding our response, you may contact us at: Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Information and Privacy Coordinator 703-613-3007 (Fax) Sincerely, Allison Fong Information and Privacy Coordinator Enclosure I {co3o 6367 6 Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 SG1A Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 SG11 Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 C03063676 I I Approved For Release 2002/10/21 : CIA-RDP79-00999A000300070001-4 SECRET Copy No.3 Final Report NOVEL BIOPHYSICAL INFORMATION TRANSFER MECHANISMS (NBIT)(U) January 14, 1976 SG1A Document No.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach?
    Creation and Evolution: What Should We Teach? Author: Eugenie C. Scott, Director Affiliation: National Center for Science Education Bio: Dr. Eugenie C. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc., a not-for-profit membership organization of scientists, teachers, and others that works to improve the teaching of evolution and of science as a way of knowing. It opposes the teaching of “scientific” creationism and other religiously based views in science classes. A former college professor, Dr. Scott lectures widely and is called upon by the press and other media to explain science and evolution to the general public. Scott is the author of the 2004 book, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, and has served as president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. Scott has been honored by both scientists and educators by being awarded the National Science Board Public Service Award, the AIBS Outstanding Service Award, the Geological Society of America Public Service Award, and the California Science Teachers Association Distinguished Service Award. She holds a Ph.D. in physical anthropology from the University of Missouri, an honorary D.Sc. from McGill University, and an honorary Doctor of Science from Ohio State University. Abstract: In this essay, I sketch an overview of the foundations of the creation/evolution debate in the United States today. Evolution is rejected by many Americans because it conflicts with their religious views. This conflict may occur because evolution is not compatible with biblical literalism, or because evolution creates other problems in Christian theology. Most Americans do not belong to Christian traditions that require a literal interpretation of the Bible; in addition, there is a long tradition of accommodation of evolution and science to Christian theology.
    [Show full text]
  • Healing Revolution Press, LLC
    FREE TIPS INSIDE! The Healing REVOLU TION Eight Essentials to Awaken Abundant Life, Naturally Dr. Frank King Healing Revolution Press, LLC CHAPTER 1: EMPOWERING THE HUMAN SPIRIT THE HEALING REVOLUTION Eight Essentials to Awaken Abundant Life, Naturally Dr. Frank King CHAPTER ONE: Empowering the Human Spirit Copyright © 2014 Healing Revolution Press, LLC 828-255-0201 www.KingBio.com All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise without permission in writing from the copyright owner. ISBN: 978-0-9894369-0-8 (print edition) ISBN: 978-0-9894369-1-5 (digital edition) Library of Congress Control Number: 2013912545 DISCLAIMER: This book is not a replacement for medical advice from a healthcare professional. The author and publisher do not dispense medical advice or prescribe the use of any technique as a form of treatment for physical, emotional or medical problems without the advice of a physician, either directly or indirectly. Application of information described herein is undertaken at the reader’s risk, with no liability to the author or publisher. Readers with medical concerns should consult with a healthcare professional. This ebook is just one part of THE HEALING REVOLUTION, by Dr. Frank King. Order the complete book here. ESSENTIAL #1: EMPOWERING THE HUMAN SPIRIT Whether you think you can or you can’t, you’re right. – Henry Ford Here’s an incredible story that was reported widely in the media: Doctors told Sam Shoeman of Nashville, Tennessee, that he had just a few months to live.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography of Map Projections
    AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOlOGICAL SURVEY Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the cur­ rent-year issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Sur­ vey publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" Publications that are listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" are no longer available. Prices of reports released to the open files are given in the listing "U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports," updated month­ ly, which is for sale in microfiche from the U.S. Geological Survey, Books and Open-File Reports Section, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. Reports released through the NTIS may be obtained by writing to the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161; please include NTIS report number with inquiry. Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below. BY MAIL OVER THE COUNTER Books Books Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications of general in­ Books of the U.S. Geological Survey are available over the terest (such as leaflets, pamphlets, booklets), single copies of Earthquakes counter at the following Geological Survey Public Inquiries Offices, all & Volcanoes, Preliminary Determination of Epicenters, and some mis­ of which are authorized agents of the Superintendent of Documents: cellaneous reports, including some of the foregoing series that have gone out of print at the Superintendent of Documents, are obtainable by mail from • WASHINGTON, D.C.--Main Interior Bldg., 2600 corridor, 18th and C Sts., NW.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to Pseudoscience, Conspiracies, and Hoaxes
    RESPONDING TO PSEUDOSCIENCE, CONSPIRACIES, AND HOAXES The best practices and strategies identified in this document were informed by a literature review across science communications, education, and social sciences. Special thanks to the National Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net), NASA Solar System Ambassador Program, and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific for their input. Theresa Schwerin Institute for Global Environmental Strategies Principal Investigator, NASA Earth Science Education Collaborative (NESEC) October 30, 2019 This resource was developed by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) under the NASA Earth Science Education Collaborative, which is supported by NASA under IGES award No. NNX16AE28A. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material or are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The scientific case has been closed for thousands of years that the Earth is round, from the ancient Greeks observing lunar eclipses, to Magellan’s crew sailing around the world, to modern astronauts orbiting the Earth, Apollo’s iconic EarthRise image, and thousands of images of Earth from space that show the Earth is a sphere. Yet, there are indications that there has recently been a rise in interest in the Flat Earth movement in the U.S. (Burdick, 2018; Dyer, 2018; Economist, 2017; Pappas, 2017).1 There are also some recent reports from NASA Science Activation (SciAct) education projects of confrontations with science deniers and conspiracy theorists at NASA-related public events. There are numerous publications, from scholarly, peer-reviewed journals to popular magazines, that span disciplines including psychology, social sciences, science education, and science communications research2 that are related to science misconceptions and naïve understandings, pseudoscience beliefs, and anti-science extremists (science deniers and conspiracists).
    [Show full text]
  • 3D Visualization of Cooperative Trajectories
    3D Visualization of Cooperative Trajectories John A. Schaefer* Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, 65409 Aerodynamicists and biologists have long recognized the benefits of formation flight. When birds or aircraft fly in the upwash region of the vortex generated by leaders in a formation, induced drag is reduced for the trail bird or aircraft, and efficiency improves. The major consequence of this is that fuel consumption can be greatly reduced. When two aircraft are separated by a large enough longitudinal distance, the aircraft are said to be flying in a cooperative trajectory. A simulation has been developed to model autonomous cooperative trajectories of aircraft; however it does not provide any 3D representation of the multi-body system dynamics. The topic of this research is the development of an accurate visualization of the multi-body system observable in a 3D environment. This visualization includes two aircraft (lead and trail), a landscape for a static reference, and simplified models of the vortex dynamics and trajectories at several locations between the aircraft. Nomenclature AC1 = lead aircraft in formation AC2 = trail aircraft in formation VRML = Simulink Virtual Reality Modeling Language = free stream velocity of AC2 = induced upwash from the vortex of AC1 = angle of attack, lift, and drag of AC2 = change in angle of attack, lift, and drag of AC2 due to = roll, pitch, and yaw angles [rad] SORA = Simultaneous Orthogonal Rotation Angle = orthogonal rotations about the axes [rad] = unit vector used in axis-angle representation = angle used in axis-angle representation [rad] = wingspan [ft] = spanwise separation of vortex pair after rollup [ft] = decent velocity of vortex system [ft/s] = weight [lb] 3 = density of air [slugs/ft ] = wake object position = initial wake object position = total wake object velocity = time since wake object generation I.
    [Show full text]
  • Mark Boslough – Climate Literacy Toolkit
    The HSSB Secular Circular – September 2020 1 Newsletter of the Humanist Society of Santa Barbara www.SBHumanists.org SEPTEMBER 2020 Please join us for our September Speaker Meeting on Zoom… Mark Boslough – Climate Literacy Toolkit Where do you stand on the issue of climate change? How effectively do you speak to others about it? Would you consider yourself to be: 1) Alarmed, 2) Concerned, 3) Cautious, 4) Disengaged, 5) Doubtful, or 6) Dismissive? These labels describe the “Six Americas” as defined by the Yale Program on Climate Communication. Mark Boslough’s talk will describe the “Six Americas” and provide useful tools for communicating with people who are in other climate change “belief” groups- skills which can also be applied to other realms of “belief” differences (religious, political, etc.). Three lucky volunteers will be assigned roles to demonstrate the communication skills for all attendees. For more background, review the Yale Report at the link above. Mark Boslough Mark Boslough is a Caltech-trained physicist and CSI Fellow who works at Los Alamos National Laboratory on planetary defense. He previously worked at Sandia National Laboratories researching hypervelocity impacts, energetic materials, explosions, global risk of asteroid impacts, and climate change. He has participated in many science documentaries with field expeditions to airburst locations including the Libyan Desert of Egypt (2006), Tunguska (2008), Chelyabinsk (2013), and the Nevada Test Site (2017). He is now a research professor at the University of New Mexico. He developed a Climate Literacy Toolkit course to enable Earth & Planetary Science graduate students to communicate more effectively with non-science acquaintances.
    [Show full text]
  • Is America Falling Off the Flat Earth?
    Is America Falling Off the Flat Earth? Norman R. Augustine, Chair, Rising Above the Gathering Storm Committee, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies ISBN: 0-309-11224-9, 92 pages, 7 x 10, (2007) This free PDF was downloaded from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12021.html Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council: • Download hundreds of free books in PDF • Read thousands of books online for free • Purchase printed books and PDF files • Explore our innovative research tools – try the Research Dashboard now • Sign up to be notified when new books are published Thank you for downloading this free PDF. If you have comments, questions or want more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or send an email to [email protected]. This book plus thousands more are available at www.nap.edu. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF file are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution or copying is strictly prohibited without permission of the National Academies Press <http://www.nap.edu/permissions/>. Permission is granted for this material to be posted on a secure password-protected Web site. The content may not be posted on a public Web site. Is America Falling Off the Flat Earth? http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12021.html IS AMERICA FALLING OFF THE FLAT EA R T H? NORMAN R.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Energy Scams
    Bad Science: Perpetual Motion There have been countless claims by quacks for the last 1200 years that machines could be built that would: # Provide energy with no energy input # Produce more energy than what was input into the system Both are clear violations of the 1st law of thermodynamics! The "Testatika" by Paul Bauman, a German engineer. Perpetuum Mobile of Villard de The device’s operation has been recorded as far back as 1960s at a place called Methernitha (near Berne, Honnecourt (about 1230) Switzerland). Supposedly, the community benefits from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines the invention. [38] “Free Energy” Scams There have also been many claims by con-artists who have claim to have built modern perpetual motion machines or technology that mysteriously extracts energy from the rotation of the earth, magnetic field of the earth, zero-point energy in vacuums, etc. Example: Check out http://www.steorn.com # $100,000 USD ad in “The Economist” claiming that this technology is developed, and they want a panel of scientists to test its validity (all test results will be held secret) # Scientist identities have not been revealed # Work not submitted for peer review, nor has been it been revealed in any form to the academic/research community at large # Incredible PR stunt, no science: the science of the con is to remove you from your wallet as quickly as possible! Pseudoscience & Voodoo science # Most well-trained scientists are extremely skeptical, as theory, experimentation and proof of concept are key elements of proper science Pseudosciences: parapsychology, homeopathy, phrenology, perpetual motion, flat earth, creation science/intelligent design, quantum mysticism, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • American Flat Earth Theory: Anti-Intellectualism, Fundamentalism and Conspiracy Theory Alex York
    University of Portland Pilot Scholars History Undergraduate Publications and History Presentations 12-2017 American Flat Earth Theory: Anti-Intellectualism, Fundamentalism and Conspiracy Theory Alex York Follow this and additional works at: https://pilotscholars.up.edu/hst_studpubs Part of the Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Citation: Pilot Scholars Version (Modified MLA Style) York, Alex, "American Flat Earth Theory: Anti-Intellectualism, Fundamentalism and Conspiracy Theory" (2017). History Undergraduate Publications and Presentations. 3. https://pilotscholars.up.edu/hst_studpubs/3 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the History at Pilot Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Undergraduate Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Pilot Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. American Flat Earth Theory: Anti-Intellectualism, Fundamentalism and Conspiracy Theory By Alex York University of Portland December 2017 Alex York On the evening before the 2016 United States (U.S.) presidential election, the majority of pollsters and experts predicted Trump would lose. The news media along with most intellectuals seemed confident that no one with Trump’s record of wild conspiracy theorizing and disconnection from established facts could ever become president. Trump had repeatedly pushed conspiracy theories with little or no evidence and shown a disregard for expert opinion or evidence.1 Trumps victory was a sign that there was a large segment of the U.S. population that wholly agreed with Trump’s anti-intellectual stance. These American’s also believed in conspiracies by scientists, academics, and journalists to misrepresent the facts. Trump and his supporters shared the belief that the stories pitched from colleges and newsstands were lies.2 However new Trump may have appeared, his constant conspiracy rhetoric, disregard for experts and facts diverges from previous figures only in magnitude and success.
    [Show full text]