Of Freemasons, Flat Earth and Steampunk

[Knaight]

I am on dilemma as i want him to comeback alive so i give him a prize for his idiocy buy i want him to be dead so biology and psychology books have a example for natural selection

Two things.
1) That's not what natural selection is. It's fundamentally a very statistical process that applies to populations, and one individual getting killed by their own stupidity doesn't fit that at all. That's without getting into the question of whether this is genetically determined behavior in the first place.

2) I assure you, if there's anything biology textbooks don't suffer from it's a shortage of examples. This applies to basically anything that shows up in a biology textbook, but if anything selection processes are particularly abundant.

[Chen]

The world would be better with less conspiracy theorists and anti-science people. If he only joined the flat earth movement for the money the world is also better off without scammers. Im pretty indifferent to him surviving or not.

[Jormengand]

I would rather he survived because I don't have a shocking indifference to the lives of real human beings, irrespective of whether or not they happen to believe stupid things.

[pendell]

I would rather he survived because I don't have a shocking indifference to the lives of real human beings, irrespective of whether or not they happen to believe stupid things.

Thank you, yes. Same here.

Also, I have a soft spot for people doing crazy things to follow their dreams, so long as they don't get anyone else hurt in the process.

At any rate, in addition to the other points already made with respect to natural selection, I should point out that Mr. Hughes is 61 years old. I suspect that he's already successfully reproduced, so even the mis-read Darwinian logic would fail in this case.

ETA : A video by him. He says he prefers 'geo-centric' to 'flat-earther' . Beyond parody. But the joke stops being funny if he gets killed , or someone else does.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[LordEntrails]

I would rather he survived because I don't have a shocking indifference to the lives of real human beings, irrespective of whether or not they happen to believe stupid things.

Well if a significant portion of people doing dangerously stupid things don't die, then we (the human race) will have a significantly more troublesome problem with overpopulation and resource shortage. That means that in many years from now we will just have more significant problems and huge numbers of indiscriminant loss of life due to starvation and war.

Since the death of people doing optional and dangerous things help postpone the death of large numbers of "innocents" due to such causes, and gives the human race more time to develop alternative such as colonizing other planets, population control, or resource enhancements, I'm all for the statistical death of people doing optional things are are knowingly dangerous.

[georgie_leech]

Well if a significant portion of people doing dangerously stupid things don't die, then we (the human race) will have a significantly more troublesome problem with overpopulation and resource shortage. That means that in many years from now we will just have more significant problems and huge numbers of indiscriminant loss of life due to starvation and war.

Since the death of people doing optional and dangerous things help postpone the death of large numbers of "innocents" due to such causes, and gives the human race more time to develop alternative such as colonizing other planets, population control, or resource enhancements, I'm all for the statistical death of people doing optional things are are knowingly dangerous.

By that logic we should encourage people to be stupid, since smart people are more likely to live and reproduce and thus contribute to the population.

[pendell]

Well if a significant portion of people doing dangerously stupid things don't die, then we (the human race) will have a significantly more troublesome problem with overpopulation and resource shortage. That means that in many years from now we will just have more significant problems and huge numbers of indiscriminant loss of life due to starvation and war.

Since the death of people doing optional and dangerous things help postpone the death of large numbers of "innocents" due to such causes, and gives the human race more time to develop alternative such as colonizing other planets, population control, or resource enhancements, I'm all for the statistical death of people doing optional things are are knowingly dangerous.

Your statement reminds me of Keith Laumer's books. I don't remember if it was Star Colony or a related one in the series, but in his future overpopulated Earth the government would deliberately set up things like amusement parks with rides that were deliberately made as unsafe as possible. There was one called the 'Death Car' where you would be paid enough to be set for life if you rode it and lived.

No one ever did, but it didn't stop people from trying.

That's how the government in the story kept the population down; they never killed anyone themselves, unless convicted of a capital crime, they simply provided many, many opportunities for stupid people to kill themselves in ways that A) wouldn't take anyone else with them B) were easy to clean up after C) provided an entertaining spectacle to the masses.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[halfeye]

Your statement reminds me of Keith Laumer's books. I don't remember if it was Star Colony or a related one in the series, but in his future overpopulated Earth the government would deliberately set up things like amusement parks with rides that were deliberately made as unsafe as possible. There was one called the 'Death Car' where you would be paid enough to be set for life if you rode it and lived.

No one ever did, but it didn't stop people from trying.

That's how the government in the story kept the population down; they never killed anyone themselves, unless convicted of a capital crime, they simply provided many, many opportunities for stupid people to kill themselves in ways that A) wouldn't take anyone else with them B) were easy to clean up after C) provided an entertaining spectacle to the masses.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I remember not liking at least one of his books. Maybe that's why.

[Bavarian itP]

By that logic we should encourage people to be stupid

It's called "Reality TV".

[Donnadogsoth]

Wouldn't the logical mission be to try to find the edge?

[5a Violista]

Wouldn't the logical mission be to try to find the edge?

No, they already know where the edge is. The thing they don't know is what lies beyond the edge.

Unfortunately, there's this huge multi-national government conspiracy (which also includes all the airports, among others) that prevents people from traveling to the edge to find out.

So, the only thing possible to do is convince a large enough proportion of the population that the governments and pilots and astronauts and scientists and historians (etc) are lying to them, causing an uprising that allows people to believe the truth and no longer be under this conspiracy.

[Jormengand]

By that logic we should encourage people to be stupid, since smart people are more likely to live and reproduce and thus contribute to the population.

IIRC, though, smart people are less likely to reproduce if they do survive long enough to. This isn't necessarily surprising given a cost-benefit analysis of children, of course...

[Anonymouswizard]

Why does anyone care if he comes back alive?

Because most people just have an aversion for people dying, even if they don't personally know them.

It's not 'he's an awesome guy, I hope he doesn't die', it's 'this sounds really cool, but I hope he doesn't die because I don't like reading about deaths'.

It's true that there's also the flat earthers who'd claim sabotage, but they'd claim that anyway.

[Keltest]

Theres a certain morbid part of me that wonders just how catastrophic this would have to be, and how often repeated, before the flat earthers admit that this was a flawed plan from the beginning and not just the result of "the man"?

[georgie_leech]

IIRC, though, smart people are less likely to reproduce if they do survive long enough to. This isn't necessarily surprising given a cost-benefit analysis of children, of course...

Oh sure. A surprisingly consistent trend is also that well-developed nations tend to have smaller family sizes as well. I just hate people arguing that stupid people dying is the solution to overpopulation; it's never the complainer advocating that fewer of people like them should exist, so it usually boils down to "People that are different than me should die."

[Anonymouswizard]

Plus we're currently using resources in a fashion where, assuming population rips out at only a few more billion, we should be able to support everybody indefinitely. Climate change is looking like a larger problem than overpopulation.

[Durkoala]

Meanwhile, according to his facebook page , it looks like the next launch will be 3 Feb. I hope he comes back alive.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I was wondering if this mad venture was still going ahead. Here's hoping that he succeeds.

TWANG

Brilliant...

[Liquor Box]

The world would be better with less conspiracy theorists and anti-science people. If he only joined the flat earth movement for the money the world is also better off without scammers. Im pretty indifferent to him surviving or not.

On the contrary, it is important that there are people who don't buy into what is widely accepted as 'known fact' by everyone else. There have been plenty of occasions in history when a thing was thought to be 'known', and those who didn't believe in it condemned, but it now appears that the thing that was 'known' was wrong. What we think of as conspiracy theories are probably only going to be right on one in a million occasions, but that one in a million is worth having conspiracy theorists for mine.

Censoring, silencing or condemning dissenting voices is a huge tragedy, no matter how wrong you think they are, whether the issue is social or scientific. If the person is wrong, it is unlikely he or she will influence many people and his or her investigations will turn ought for nothing anyway.

[pendell]

On the contrary, it is important that there are people who don't buy into what is widely accepted as 'known fact' by everyone else. There have been plenty of occasions in history when a thing was thought to be 'known', and those who didn't believe in it condemned, but it now appears that the thing that was 'known' was wrong. What we think of as conspiracy theories are probably only going to be right on one in a million occasions, but that one in a million is worth having conspiracy theorists for mine.

Censoring, silencing or condemning dissenting voices is a huge tragedy, no matter how wrong you think they are, whether the issue is social or scientific. If the person is wrong, it is unlikely he or she will influence many people and his or her investigations will turn ought for nothing anyway.

The fundamental flaw I see in this argument, is the anti-vaccine movement as popularized by Oprah Winfrey . She has -- well, had -- all kinds of viewpoints on her show. Some people questioning mainstream really are geniuses who will defy modern convention to set the world of science on its ear with a new idea. But the vast majority are crackpots and cranks, some of whom are quite actively harmful. If Measles, Mumps, and Rubella start killing people in this country again, it is because we are too tolerant of nonsense.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Eldan]

And the anti-vaxxer movement has some subgroups that are so, so much worse. "Shouldn't be allowed near children" worse. In a few cases "I'd be tempted to shoot them" worse. But not things I'd discuss on this board. Let's just say it basically amounts to torturing autistic children.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The fundamental flaw I see in this argument, is the anti-vaccine movement as popularized by Oprah Winfrey . She has -- well, had -- all kinds of viewpoints on her show. Some people questioning mainstream really are geniuses who will defy modern convention to set the world of science on its ear with a new idea. But the vast majority are crackpots and cranks, some of whom are quite actively harmful. If Measles, Mumps, and Rubella start killing people in this country again, it is because we are too tolerant of nonsense.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Not to mention the horrible damage being done to education by people who refuse to accept basic scientific principles (such as evolution). There is a difference between doubting established wisdom because the established theories don't quite match reality, and simply throwing Okham's razor away to posit nonsense in an effort to scam people.

GW

[Knaight]

If the person is wrong, it is unlikely he or she will influence many people...

This is a ridiculously optimistic perspective with no shortage of obvious counter examples.

[LordEntrails]

First, I hope people are not reading too much into my comments, either before or below.

By that logic we should encourage people to be stupid, since smart people are more likely to live and reproduce and thus contribute to the population.

No. You are assuming that "not discouraging" is the same as "encouraging". Neither is the same logically or morally.

About contributing to the population, some interesting points below...

Your statement reminds me of Keith Laumer's books. ...
That's how the government in the story kept the population down; they never killed anyone themselves, unless convicted of a capital crime, they simply provided many, many opportunities for stupid people to kill themselves in ways that A) wouldn't take anyone else with them B) were easy to clean up after C) provided an entertaining spectacle to the masses.

Interesting concepts, though I not a fan of government involvement in most things, including population control.

IIRC, though, smart people are less likely to reproduce if they do survive long enough to. This isn't necessarily surprising given a cost-benefit analysis of children, of course...

Sounds like a self-regulating system for population control... maybe its due to selfishness or because of a sense responsibility to the future.

Because most people just have an aversion for people dying, even if they don't personally know them.

You do know the logical conclusion if people don't die don't you? I mean wouldn't it be great if no one ever died from disease, stupidity or old age? Sorry, but people MUST die. Its natural to have an aversion to death, after all, most of us don't want to die, at least not anytime soon. But death is also natural (and necesary).

Oh sure. A surprisingly consistent trend is also that well-developed nations tend to have smaller family sizes as well. I just hate people arguing that stupid people dying is the solution to overpopulation; it's never the complainer advocating that fewer of people like them should exist, so it usually boils down to "People that are different than me should die."

I don't think this is a fair assessment of my views or statements.
1) I did not argue that stupd people dying would solve over population, only that it would buy the human civilization more time to find a solution. Anyone want to bother to debate population growth curves? The math is pretty simple.
2) Actually, in this specific case (and the only one we have been talking about), this gentleman appears to be about "as like" me demographically as possible. Trying to imply racism, sexism, or any "ism" other than stupidity-ism does not further the discussion.

Plus we're currently using resources in a fashion where, assuming population rips out at only a few more billion, we should be able to support everybody indefinitely. Climate change is looking like a larger problem than overpopulation.

Or one could look at it that "we" are using more resources than the planet can support is because we have too many people using those resources. It's obviously not that simple, but population and resource use are not independent.

[wumpus]

) I assure you, if there's anything biology textbooks don't suffer from it's a shortage of examples. This applies to basically anything that shows up in a biology textbook, but if anything selection processes are particularly abundant.

My parents live near Asheville, NC and I used to often hear the "creationism minute" come on the radio (I don't know if it is off the air, or simply haven't heard the radio down there as often). It seemed that *every* example I ever heard was typically a great example for evolution, with the occasional example that could be used even better by Satanists (one of the examples was firefly's: female firefly's often "lie" by giving a different species "hello sailor" message, then eat the amourous male when he arrives).

At first I thought the intern was a secret scientist, but then figured that *any* example will favor evolution.

[halfeye]

It's obviously not that simple, but population and resource use are not independent.

Nor are individual resource usage and individual wealth.

[Liquor Box]

This is a ridiculously optimistic perspective with no shortage of obvious counter examples.

To be clearer, I by "many people" I mean a significant portion of the population (maybe 5%-10%). There will always be a few people with unusual ideas, and they will tend attract one another (like many groups who have things in common).

Are there any current examples of a person or group that is demonstrable wrong (in that any intelligent and informed person can see that they are definitely wrong) influencing a significant proportion of the population.

There may be such examples. But if so, I suggest to you that the way to overcome them is not to try to shut such people up, but instead to allow them their platform but point out how and why they are wrong.

[Liquor Box]

Not to mention the horrible damage being done to education by people who refuse to accept basic scientific principles (such as evolution). There is a difference between doubting established wisdom because the established theories don't quite match reality, and simply throwing Okham's razor away to posit nonsense in an effort to scam people.

GW

I believe that the scientific theory of evolution is probably largely accurate myself. But we cannot say conclusively that people who disagree are wrong. Certainly Occam's razor (which you site) is only intended to be a heuristic rule of thumb, and not a guarantee of logical certainty.

But, let's assume for the sake of argument that you and I are correct that that the theory of evolution is accurate. Where have the last few decades of discussion on the topic (with both sides being heard to some degree). I suggest that more people believe in the theory of evolution than did 20 or 30 years ago. So having a discussion where both sides of the argument are heard is resulting in the 'correct' (assuming you and I are right) theory winning out. Contrast that with setting where proponents of one side of the same (or a similar) debate has been ostracised or worse for stating their case and I think you will agree that the more open debate we are able to have nowadays (with that debate being contributed to by both sides) is much to be preferred.

[Liquor Box]

The fundamental flaw I see in this argument, is the anti-vaccine movement as popularized by Oprah Winfrey . She has -- well, had -- all kinds of viewpoints on her show. Some people questioning mainstream really are geniuses who will defy modern convention to set the world of science on its ear with a new idea. But the vast majority are crackpots and cranks, some of whom are quite actively harmful. If Measles, Mumps, and Rubella start killing people in this country again, it is because we are too tolerant of nonsense.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

There is presently a near consensus amongst experts that vaccines are beneficial.

But there are many examples throughout history of occasions where there has been a near medical consensus about a thing, but the contemporary medical view contradicts that previous consensus. Some of these are quite recent (in our modern days of scientific method), for example only 30 or so years ago most doctors would tell you that fast food and stress were major contributors to stomach ulcers. That is no longer believed to be the case.

Now of course for every occasion where an accepted medical convention has later been found to have been probably incorrect, there are probably hundreds or thousands of examples of accepted medical practices or theories that were completely sound, despite any crackpots that tried to discredit them. Vaccines far more likely falls into that second category (being sound medical theory) than the former (being one of those times when medical convention is wrong), but we do not know that.

Also, as I said to Grey Wolf, are the anti-vaccine advocates winning many people over? What proportion of the population agree with them? I imagine it is a much smaller proportion that those who do not - which will usually be the case when an argument is flawed.

I think we are much better off as a society for having dissenters who are constantly questioning our beliefs (whether social or scientific). It may only be one time in a thousand or one time in a million when they are right, but that is enough to make it worthwhile. Society has made much more gains throughout history from people who were thought to be crazy (or heretics or whatever word you like) for speaking against the status quo in terms of things that were understood as fact, than it has from shutting such people up.

[Eldan]

The problem is that even a small amount of dissenters in a location destroys herd immunity if they don't vaccinate their kids. Plus, their kids have to suffer from rubella, measles, mumps, etc. There's a reason many countries make vaccinations mandatory, up to taking kids away if the parents refuse to vaccinate them.

[snowblizz]

Also, as I said to Grey Wolf, are the anti-vaccine advocates winning many people over?

Yes they are. A number of deceases that were nearly or entirely wiped out in developed countries have returned. How many cases of people dying of measles over 0 is an OK number in your opinion for it to matter how large a number being "won over" is significant? Is 10 antivaxxers being craeted who allow a small epidemic of some dozens of people and a death in what was an eradicated disease "many people"?

There's now an outbreak of measles in Sweden with 27 infected, where 10-20 years ago it was effectively zero. Anyone born after 1980 should be protected. Should. But there are plenty of people born before that that might not have adequate protection since the vaccine stems from the 1960s. Was this caused by antivaxxers? Of course not. Were any involved? Highly unlikely. But these are the conditions they are helping to feed.

The Internet has done wonders in connecting these people and helping them in spreading various crackpot theories.

It used to be occasional people for odd personal reasons refusing e.g. vacciantions. Today they "get informed" online.

We have laws against hate speech because some things are deemed so incendiary it may cause people to be hurt or killed. Guess what antivaxxers do.


Edit: Right was going to say something about the outlier scientists. When there's a broad prevailing view in science that is incorrct, as it has been at times, this is changed not by outlier crackpots but the weight of scientific evidence. We don't have to protect the crackpots to preserve the upending of prevailing ideas. Because invariably the crackpots don't have facts or other reasonable evidecne to support their ideas. And those are kinda what we need to change our minds not some random lunatic who wants to get rich selling silverwater. Apropos snakeoil peddlers.