undefined | Better HN

0 pointsImPostingOnHN2y ago0 comments

I'm not convinced this proposed alternative is better than the status quo. It's simply not feasible, no matter how many benefits one might imagine.

the concern about skepticism is not irrelevant, but many of these skeptics also are skeptical of the earth being round, or older than a few thousand years, or not created by an omnipotent skylord, and I'm not sure it's actually a significant concern given the current number and expertise of those who are skeptical

so, we can hear their arguments for their skepticism, but that doesn't mean the arguments are valid to warrant the skepticism exhibited. And in the end, that's what matters: skepticism warranted by valid arguments, not just any Cletus McCletus's skepticism of heliocentrism, as if his opinion is equal to that of an astrophysicist (it isn't). And you know what? It isn't necessary to convince a ditch digger that the earth goes around the sun, if they feel like arguing about it.

0 pointsImPostingOnHN2y ago0 comments

I'm not convinced this proposed alternative is better than the status quo. It's simply not feasible, no matter how many benefits one might imagine.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

brightball2y ago· 2 in thread

> skeptical of the earth being round

I’m skeptical that these people truly exist outside of the internet wanting it to be true.

ImPostingOnHNOP2y ago

> I’m skeptical that these people truly exist outside of the internet wanting it to be true

I'm not, just like I'm not skeptical that climate change denialists truly exist outside of the internet

there's simply no valid argument to warrant skepticism of either, given the ease of locating evidence that both do

brightball2y ago

Sure there is. Ease of proof.

I can walk outside and prove gravity.

I can find a million pictures of the earth taken from space, look at a globe and view trade routes that circumnavigate it. I can also look to the sky and see the sun and moon are clearly circular which makes a pretty good case for a pattern.

Climate change or the age of the earth are based on a whole lot more interconnected bits of science that even if you studied your entire life you could not truly say that you understand. You’re putting your trust in layers of science that add up to a certain conclusion (which is good). When people are given good reasons to believe that science and peer reviews aren’t always legitimate it undermines that process of trust building on trust.

Modern aviation is layer upon layer of science building on each other, but I can easily watch a plane takeoff to validate all of those processes.

That’s it in a nutshell. If you can easily replicate it, it’s easy to trust. If you can’t, it’s not…especially when it’s used to drive politics.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse