Flat Earth

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
So... I've been watching some videos on youtube. Probably a mistake, right there. Recently, I discovered a physicist (going by the name "Dr Blitz", for those who are interested) whose channel has started recently. He has a call in show where, among other things, he invites flat earthers (or "flerfers", which is an appropriately cute name for them, I think) to call in and explain why they believe the Earth is flat. It makes for interesting viewing, in small doses.

It could just be an artifact of social media algorithms, which are designed to promote controversy and acrimony, but I get the impression that "globe denialism" is on the rise at the moment. This seems to be mostly a US phenomenon, but it's not entirely restricted to the US. The UK seems to have its fair share of flerfers, judging by the callers.

Until recently, I haven't really paid any attention to the flat earth people because, frankly, I've always considered it to be a fringe conspiracy theory that is too stupid to merit any serious investment of time. Now, while I remain of the opinion that it's a silly fringe conspiracy theory, I think it's worth spending a little time on it - if for no other reason than to get a realistic picture of just how badly the education system is failing some people.

It is tempting to think that nobody who espouses flerferism could really believe it. Surely, they must all be trolls who are just playing a game and "punching up" at perceived "elites" (e.g. people who went to a university or a decent high school). But that doesn't seem to be the case. While, almost certainly, there are trolls who know that the flat earth is stupid, it seems that there's a not insignificant group of people who honestly believe that the Earth is flat.

What are the common characteristics of these people who say the Earth is flat? Here are my impressions, based on watching too many youtube "debates" about the flat earth.

1. They universally lack an education in science. Or, if they were ever taught any science, they were taught to memorise lists of "facts" to be accepted without question. They weren't taught about the methods of science or why we accept any of it. Many of them can't name a single living scientist.
2. Generalising, most of them have a very limited knowledge of the world beyond their immediate environs and their daily life. Their educational level is, usually, at an early highschool stage.
3. They tend not to have travelled more than a few hundred kilometres from the place they grew up. If they are American - as most are - then they have never travelled outside the United States, and many haven't travelled very much in the US either. Their knowledge of geography is rudimentary at best.
4. They are mostly men - although this could due to a biased sample. Probably ignorant men are more likely than ignorant women to want to argue about stuff they are ignorant of in public on social media.
5. They believe that the "globe earth" is a myth that is put out by a massive conspiracy. The conspiracy certainly involves all scientists and the government. A lot of flerfers also believe that a secret global cabal is running the world. More than a few flerfers are anti-semites who believe that the secret cabal is a Jewish conspiracy. But sometimes it's the "illuminati" or the Freemasons, or a combination of one or more of these. These people need a conspiracy theory or four, because how else can they explain all the apparent "fakery" of the abundant evidence for the spheroid Earth?
6. They often believe in further conspiracy theories that are unrelated to the flat earth.
7. A lot of them are very religious and rely on religious texts - especially the bible - as support for their belief in the flat earth. However, there are also non-religious flerfers, and some who believe the religion is "in on it" - the Catholic Church is an oft-named conspirator.
8. Since their flat-earth hypothesis is largely unworkable, they also usually have to go to great lengths to deny obvious things - the existence of outer space is common one. Rockets can't go into space. Obviously, nothing has ever gone to the moon. etc.
9. They typically refuse to even look at evidence that refutes the flat earth. When it is presented to them, they just deny it (without giving any valid reasons, of course) and/or try to change the topic.
10. They spend most of their time trying to make arguments against the "globe earth" and very rarely make arguments for the flat earth.
11. A favourite debating technique of a lot of flerfers is the Gish Gallop, which involves jumping from one topic to another without allowing time for any real consideration of the arguments for and against any one topic.
12. They are disorganised thinkers. When they talk, their ideas don't connect to one another in a logical sequence.
13. A lot of them seem to have trouble maintaining concentration - a bit like people with ADHD (which, for all I know, might have a higher prevalence among flerfers).
14. Another oft-seen debating technique - in oral debates anyway - related to the Gish Gallop, is to just keep talking and never stop to listen to anything the opposition has to say. When they are asked to repeat what their globe-earth opponent has literally just told them, most of them are unable to do it, because they were talking all the time while the other person was explaining. It's like they think that they can win by literally shouting down their opponents.
15. Loyalty to the cause is an non-negotiable requirement of flerferism. Any flerfer who has doubts or - worse! - changes his mind, is dead to the flerfer community. Nobody wants to know why he changed his mind. They want to forget he ever existed in the first place.
16. Dunning Kruger is strong in these people. An almost universal characteristic in all of them is supreme confidence that they are right, combined with little or no knowledge - not just about the subject matter of their beliefs, but also about how to go about finding out whether they are right or wrong.
17. Related to the Dunning Kruger is the common belief that there are no experts. In the flerfer world, if you're a yoga instructor flerfer then chances are high that you believe you know as much or more than an astrophysicist about matters such as geometry, geography, physics, gravity, mathematics, measurement, and more. After all, you've watched some flerfer youtube videos that make (flawed) arguments for the flat earth. That's equivalent to a Ph.D in physics, surely!
18. Flerfers, who are unfamiliar with science, tend to believe that science education is merely a matter of memorising dogmatic "facts". Flerfers will refer to science educators as "high priests of science", who are supposedly revered and never questioned by their obedient followers, all of whom are content never to question the orthodoxy. In other words, flerfers think that science is basically a religion. Which, again, is understandable, since all of them are unfamiliar with science, while a lot of them are very familiar with one (almost always just one) religion.

Anyway...

I'm starting this thread because (a) I'm interested in whether any of our regulars have come across the flat earth community - believers in the flat earth - and if so what your experience of them has been; and (b) because it seems likely that, sooner or later, we'll get one or two flerfers floating in here and trying there luck. It seems like it's worth having One Thread to Rule them All on this topic.

Also, if anybody is interested in posting about some good arguments against the flat earth, please feel free. Fine if you want to wait until we catch a live flerfer, though.

If you're a regular and a closet flerfer, please feel free to give us your best arguments.

If you're new to sciforums and you believe the earth is flat, welcome! Let us know if you're interested in learning some science.
 
Last edited:
I was in the flat earth society at Uni! The basic premise was, we all met down the pub did a bit of socialising, what is your name? where you from? What course are you on? Then we would attempt to drink ten pints and declare that the earth was flat.

I didn't manage it, the volume was too much.

Anyway that was my first brush with the concept and if course no-one took it seriously, we had fun. That was the 1980s, fast forward 40 years and I came across a YouTube video of someone debunking a flat earther.
Eh!? There are actual people who believe it?? Yeah!
I watched the video, it was hilarious, the guy doing the debunking was, "Professor Dave" from the "professor Dave explains" channel.

The debunks last hours so I won't post here.

He reviewed the below trip where a guy paid some flurfers to go to Antarctica where they could see the 24 hour sun. There is no flerf model where this can hold.

 
I imagine it is quite difficult having a conversation with a flerfer, in the same way it is pretty much impossible discussing science with a commited creationist. I have tried with the latter and it is obvious some sort of script is being referred to.

This is a video I absolutely do recommend, Professor Dave debates, if you can call it a debate with Lord Jamar, a flerfer.

The big guy is called Dante Nero and he tries to be a voice of reason but Dave does not really need help.

You would have thought that the "Final experiment" would have sealed the deal on the concept but apparently not. Perhaps Jamar did not see that?

Anyway.

 
Last edited:
So... I've been watching some videos on youtube. Probably a mistake, right there. Recently, I discovered a physicist (going by the name "Dr Blitz", for those who are interested) whose channel has started recently. He has a call in show where, among other things, he invites flat earthers (or "flerfers", which is an appropriately cute name for them, I think) to call in and explain why they believe the Earth is flat. It makes for interesting viewing, in small doses.
I will defo check that out.
 
So... I've been watching some videos on youtube. Probably a mistake, right there. Recently, I discovered a physicist (going by the name "Dr Blitz", for those who are interested) whose channel has started recently. He has a call in show where, among other things, he invites flat earthers (or "flerfers", which is an appropriately cute name for them, I think) to call in and explain why they believe the Earth is flat. It makes for interesting viewing, in small doses.

It could just be an artifact of social media algorithms, which are designed to promote controversy and acrimony, but I get the impression that "globe denialism" is on the rise at the moment. This seems to be mostly a US phenomenon, but it's not entirely restricted to the US. The UK seems to have its fair share of flerfers, judging by the callers.

Until recently, I haven't really paid any attention to the flat earth people because, frankly, I've always considered it to be a fringe conspiracy theory that is too stupid to merit any serious investment of time. Now, while I remain of the opinion that it's a silly fringe conspiracy theory, I think it's worth spending a little time on it - if for no other reason than to get a realistic picture of just how badly the education system is failing some people.

It is tempting to think that nobody who espouses flerferism could really believe it. Surely, they must all be trolls who are just playing a game and "punching up" at perceived "elites" (e.g. people who went to a university or a decent high school). But that doesn't seem to be the case. While, almost certainly, there are trolls who know that the flat earth is stupid, it seems that there's a not insignificant group of people who honestly believe that the Earth is flat.

What are the common characteristics of these people who say the Earth is flat? Here are my impressions, based on watching too many youtube "debates" about the flat earth.

1. They universally lack an education in science. Or, if they were ever taught any science, they were taught to memorise lists of "facts" to be accepted without question. They weren't taught about the methods of science or why we accept any of it. Many of them can't name a single living scientist.
2. Generalising, most of them have a very limited knowledge of the world beyond their immediate environs and their daily life. Their educational level is, usually, at an early highschool stage.
3. They tend not to have travelled more than a few hundred kilometres from the place they grew up. If they are American - as most are - then they have never travelled outside the United States, and many haven't travelled very much in the US either. Their knowledge of geography is rudimentary at best.
4. They are mostly men - although this could due to a biased sample. Probably ignorant men are more likely than ignorant women to want to argue about stuff they are ignorant of in public on social media.
5. They believe that the "globe earth" is a myth that is put out by a massive conspiracy. The conspiracy certainly involves all scientists and the government. A lot of flerfers also believe that a secret global cabal is running the world. More than a few flerfers are anti-semites who believe that the secret cabal is a Jewish conspiracy. But sometimes it's the "illuminati" or the Freemasons, or a combination of one or more of these. These people need a conspiracy theory or four, because how else can they explain all the apparent "fakery" of the abundant evidence for the spheroid Earth?
6. They often believe in further conspiracy theories that are unrelated to the flat earth.
7. A lot of them are very religious and rely on religious texts - especially the bible - as support for their belief in the flat earth. However, there are also non-religious flerfers, and some who believe the religion is "in on it" - the Catholic Church is an oft-named conspirator.
8. Since their flat-earth hypothesis is largely unworkable, they also usually have to go to great lengths to deny obvious things - the existence of outer space is common one. Rockets can't go into space. Obviously, nothing has ever gone to the moon. etc.
9. They typically refuse to even look at evidence that refutes the flat earth. When it is presented to them, they just deny it (without giving any valid reasons, of course) and/or try to change the topic.
10. They spend most of their time trying to make arguments against the "globe earth" and very rarely make arguments for the flat earth.
11. A favourite debating technique of a lot of flerfers is the Gish Gallop, which involves jumping from one topic to another without allowing time for any real consideration of the arguments for and against any one topic.
12. They are disorganised thinkers. When they talk, their ideas don't connect to one another in a logical sequence.
13. A lot of them seem to have trouble maintaining concentration - a bit like people with ADHD (which, for all I know, might have a higher prevalence among flerfers).
14. Another oft-seen debating technique - in oral debates anyway - related to the Gish Gallop, is to just keep talking and never stop to listen to anything the opposition has to say. When they are asked to repeat what their globe-earth opponent has literally just told them, most of them are unable to do it, because they were talking all the time while the other person was explaining. It's like they think that they can win by literally shouting down their opponents.
15. Loyalty to the cause is an non-negotiable requirement of flerferism. Any flerfer who has doubts or - worse! - changes his mind, is dead to the flerfer community. Nobody wants to know why he changed his mind. They want to forget he ever existed in the first place.
16. Dunning Kruger is strong in these people. An almost universal characteristic in all of them is supreme confidence that they are right, combined with little or no knowledge - not just about the subject matter of their beliefs, but also about how to go about finding out whether they are right or wrong.
17. Related to the Dunning Kruger is the common belief that there are no experts. In the flerfer world, if you're a yoga instructor flerfer then chances are high that you believe you know as much or more than an astrophysicist about matters such as geometry, geography, physics, gravity, mathematics, measurement, and more. After all, you've watched some flerfer youtube videos that make (flawed) arguments for the flat earth. That's equivalent to a Ph.D in physics, surely!
18. Flerfers, who are unfamiliar with science, tend to believe that science education is merely a matter of memorising dogmatic "facts". Flerfers will refer to science educators as "high priests of science", who are supposedly revered and never questioned by their obedient followers, all of whom are content never to question the orthodoxy. In other words, flerfers think that science is basically a religion. Which, again, is understandable, since all of them are unfamiliar with science, while a lot of them are very familiar with one (almost always just one) religion.

Anyway...

I'm starting this thread because (a) I'm interested in whether any of our regulars have come across the flat earth community - believers in the flat earth - and if so what your experience of them has been; and (b) because it seems likely that, sooner or later, we'll get one or two flerfers floating in here and trying there luck. It seems like it's worth having One Thread to Rule them All on this topic.

Also, if anybody is interested in posting about some good arguments against the flat earth, please feel free. Fine if you want to wait until we catch a live flerfer, though.

If you're a regular and a closet flerfer, please feel free to give us your best arguments.

If you're new to sciforums and you believe the earth is flat, welcome! Let us know if you're interested in learning some science.
Blimey Dr Blitz is prolific! Is there any one debate you recommend? They are quite a few of them and some are 2 hours plus.
I will dip in as he does a lot of Physics stuff, perhaps have a look there and then check out the flerf if you don't get back in time.
Thanks for the recommendation.
 
So... I've been watching some videos on youtube. Probably a mistake, right there. Recently, I discovered a physicist (going by the name "Dr Blitz", for those who are interested) whose channel has started recently. He has a call in show where, among other things, he invites flat earthers (or "flerfers", which is an appropriately cute name for them, I think) to call in and explain why they believe the Earth is flat. It makes for interesting viewing, in small doses.

It could just be an artifact of social media algorithms, which are designed to promote controversy and acrimony, but I get the impression that "globe denialism" is on the rise at the moment. This seems to be mostly a US phenomenon, but it's not entirely restricted to the US. The UK seems to have its fair share of flerfers, judging by the callers.

Until recently, I haven't really paid any attention to the flat earth people because, frankly, I've always considered it to be a fringe conspiracy theory that is too stupid to merit any serious investment of time. Now, while I remain of the opinion that it's a silly fringe conspiracy theory, I think it's worth spending a little time on it - if for no other reason than to get a realistic picture of just how badly the education system is failing some people.

It is tempting to think that nobody who espouses flerferism could really believe it. Surely, they must all be trolls who are just playing a game and "punching up" at perceived "elites" (e.g. people who went to a university or a decent high school). But that doesn't seem to be the case. While, almost certainly, there are trolls who know that the flat earth is stupid, it seems that there's a not insignificant group of people who honestly believe that the Earth is flat.

What are the common characteristics of these people who say the Earth is flat? Here are my impressions, based on watching too many youtube "debates" about the flat earth.

1. They universally lack an education in science. Or, if they were ever taught any science, they were taught to memorise lists of "facts" to be accepted without question. They weren't taught about the methods of science or why we accept any of it. Many of them can't name a single living scientist.
2. Generalising, most of them have a very limited knowledge of the world beyond their immediate environs and their daily life. Their educational level is, usually, at an early highschool stage.
3. They tend not to have travelled more than a few hundred kilometres from the place they grew up. If they are American - as most are - then they have never travelled outside the United States, and many haven't travelled very much in the US either. Their knowledge of geography is rudimentary at best.
4. They are mostly men - although this could due to a biased sample. Probably ignorant men are more likely than ignorant women to want to argue about stuff they are ignorant of in public on social media.
5. They believe that the "globe earth" is a myth that is put out by a massive conspiracy. The conspiracy certainly involves all scientists and the government. A lot of flerfers also believe that a secret global cabal is running the world. More than a few flerfers are anti-semites who believe that the secret cabal is a Jewish conspiracy. But sometimes it's the "illuminati" or the Freemasons, or a combination of one or more of these. These people need a conspiracy theory or four, because how else can they explain all the apparent "fakery" of the abundant evidence for the spheroid Earth?
6. They often believe in further conspiracy theories that are unrelated to the flat earth.
7. A lot of them are very religious and rely on religious texts - especially the bible - as support for their belief in the flat earth. However, there are also non-religious flerfers, and some who believe the religion is "in on it" - the Catholic Church is an oft-named conspirator.
8. Since their flat-earth hypothesis is largely unworkable, they also usually have to go to great lengths to deny obvious things - the existence of outer space is common one. Rockets can't go into space. Obviously, nothing has ever gone to the moon. etc.
9. They typically refuse to even look at evidence that refutes the flat earth. When it is presented to them, they just deny it (without giving any valid reasons, of course) and/or try to change the topic.
10. They spend most of their time trying to make arguments against the "globe earth" and very rarely make arguments for the flat earth.
11. A favourite debating technique of a lot of flerfers is the Gish Gallop, which involves jumping from one topic to another without allowing time for any real consideration of the arguments for and against any one topic.
12. They are disorganised thinkers. When they talk, their ideas don't connect to one another in a logical sequence.
13. A lot of them seem to have trouble maintaining concentration - a bit like people with ADHD (which, for all I know, might have a higher prevalence among flerfers).
14. Another oft-seen debating technique - in oral debates anyway - related to the Gish Gallop, is to just keep talking and never stop to listen to anything the opposition has to say. When they are asked to repeat what their globe-earth opponent has literally just told them, most of them are unable to do it, because they were talking all the time while the other person was explaining. It's like they think that they can win by literally shouting down their opponents.
15. Loyalty to the cause is an non-negotiable requirement of flerferism. Any flerfer who has doubts or - worse! - changes his mind, is dead to the flerfer community. Nobody wants to know why he changed his mind. They want to forget he ever existed in the first place.
16. Dunning Kruger is strong in these people. An almost universal characteristic in all of them is supreme confidence that they are right, combined with little or no knowledge - not just about the subject matter of their beliefs, but also about how to go about finding out whether they are right or wrong.
17. Related to the Dunning Kruger is the common belief that there are no experts. In the flerfer world, if you're a yoga instructor flerfer then chances are high that you believe you know as much or more than an astrophysicist about matters such as geometry, geography, physics, gravity, mathematics, measurement, and more. After all, you've watched some flerfer youtube videos that make (flawed) arguments for the flat earth. That's equivalent to a Ph.D in physics, surely!
18. Flerfers, who are unfamiliar with science, tend to believe that science education is merely a matter of memorising dogmatic "facts". Flerfers will refer to science educators as "high priests of science", who are supposedly revered and never questioned by their obedient followers, all of whom are content never to question the orthodoxy. In other words, flerfers think that science is basically a religion. Which, again, is understandable, since all of them are unfamiliar with science, while a lot of them are very familiar with one (almost always just one) religion.

Anyway...

I'm starting this thread because (a) I'm interested in whether any of our regulars have come across the flat earth community - believers in the flat earth - and if so what your experience of them has been; and (b) because it seems likely that, sooner or later, we'll get one or two flerfers floating in here and trying there luck. It seems like it's worth having One Thread to Rule them All on this topic.

Also, if anybody is interested in posting about some good arguments against the flat earth, please feel free. Fine if you want to wait until we catch a live flerfer, though.

If you're a regular and a closet flerfer, please feel free to give us your best arguments.

If you're new to sciforums and you believe the earth is flat, welcome! Let us know if you're interested in learning some science.
Конечно же она плоская, потому что с круглой вы бы уже давно скатились. И вообще, люди не мухи, чтобы ходить вверх ногами по круглой Земле.
 
Конечно же она плоская, потому что с круглой вы бы уже давно скатились. И вообще, люди не мухи, чтобы ходить вверх ногами по круглой Земле.
Is Poe's law rearing it's confusing head here?
 
Что такое закон По?
It is a reference to creationists. If you try and parody creationism it tends to sound like creationism itself.

What you posted sounded like you were making fun of flat earthism OR were giving an argument for flat earthism.

I could not tell.
 
It is a reference to creationists. If you try and parody creationism it tends to sound like creationism itself.

What you posted sounded like you were making fun of flat earthism OR were giving an argument for flat earthism.

I could not tell.
Да ну что вы, какие шутки? Земля плавает в квантовом океане, и похожа на блин. Я каждый раз переживаю, не навредят ли ей все эти небоскрёбы? Вдруг она из-за них перевернётся? Что мы тогда будем делать?
 
Да ну что вы, какие шутки? Земля плавает в квантовом океане, и похожа на блин. Я каждый раз переживаю, не навредят ли ей все эти небоскрёбы? Вдруг она из-за них перевернётся? Что мы тогда будем делать?
Ok so you were joking. You see what I mean though? Flat earthers are bat shit crazy. Some if not all think gravity is fake!
 
Ok so you were joking. You see what I mean though? Flat earthers are bat shit crazy. Some if not all think gravity is fake!
Ни фига не иллюзия. Я ела мандарины, и кидала шкурки в небо, а они всё равно упали вниз. Гравитация, блин...
 
I was in the flat earth society at Uni! The basic premise was, we all met down the pub did a bit of socialising, what is your name? where you from? What course are you on? Then we would attempt to drink ten pints and declare that the earth was flat.

I didn't manage it, the volume was too much.

Anyway that was my first brush with the concept and if course no-one took it seriously, we had fun. That was the 1980s, fast forward 40 years and I came across a YouTube video of someone debunking a flat earther.
Eh!? There are actual people who believe it?? Yeah!
I watched the video, it was hilarious, the guy doing the debunking was, "Professor Dave" from the "professor Dave explains" channel.

The debunks last hours so I won't post here.

He reviewed the below trip where a guy paid some flurfers to go to Antarctica where they could see the 24 hour sun. There is no flerf model where this can hold.

The question before us today, could you now drink 10 pints and could you then still win a debate with a sober flurfer?
 
The question before us today, could you now drink 10 pints and could you then still win a debate with a sober flurfer?
I try and keep my drinking restricted these days, you can get away with it at 20!
Ten pints would put me on my arse today.
I think I could hold my own pissed on: Evolution, Old earth, round earth, BB Cosmology, especially if they are on the same level as Kermos or Trek.
I post quite pissed on here sometimes, perhaps you can tell!
 
When it's not akin to dressing up as Star Trek characters at a sci-fi convention, supposedly "serious" flat-Earthers can also just be opportunists and contrarians. Evidence becomes irrelevant even to the educated when the drivers are expedience or defying the majority for free agency or political (includes moral and cultural identity) reasons. To unpackage:

The Flat Earth Society website has a 2020 post about daredevil Michael Hughes' death, who was killed in a rocket crash. He may have espoused Flat Earth belief purely to generate funding for his launches.

Mike Hughes (wikipedia): Following Hughes' death, Darren Shuster, his public relations representative, stated: "We used flat Earth as a PR stunt... Flat Earth allowed us to get so much publicity that we kept going! I know he didn’t believe in flat Earth and it was a schtick." Science writer Mick West also came away convinced from talking to Hughes "that he was not driven by seeking to explain that the earth is flat but rather wanted to use the topic to promote his stuntman career." On the other hand, Michael Linn, who was a partner on the documentary Rocketman: Mad Mike's Mission to Prove the Flat-Earth, said that Hughes' belief appeared genuine.

The FES wiki on the website addresses the issue of whether the doxastic stance of members is legitimate. And dismisses such as irrelevant, thereby leaving it hanging how much of this is just philosophical contrarianism.

TFES #Logical Fallacy: [...] Appeal to motive, where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer. A subset of this is the George Scott Fallacy, in which it is stated that an arguer does not truly believe their argument. [...] When debating, using the George Scott Fallacy is generally considered a point of concession. Belief in what you're debating should not influence your ability to debate the point. So when the opposition must resort to accusing the debater of not truly believing, they are attacking the debater, not the issue. ...

In the context of contrarianism.... At first glance, there does not seem to be any social justice angle to the movement, unless one counts a sub-faction of religious literalists or cultural Identity centrists as some sort of postcolonial rejection of the Western hegemony of knowledge. And there's nothing beneficial to "epistemological liberty" when what's being defended (in Devil's advocate fashion) is clearly incorrect. So it seems to boil to down to assertion of free will and establishing distinct individuality. And whatever cynical, antagonistic, and paranoia-satisfying needs that conspiracies psychologically provide.

What Motivates People to be Contrarians? - A desire to be unique and autonomous.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...02510/what-motivates-people-to-be-contrarians

KEY POINTS: Our autonomy is about our belief to be self-directed rather than directed by others. Contrarians will often see the need to resist fitting into social expectations. Many of the positive changes in the world were initiated by people who were considered non-conformists. We need the security of conformity and we need the freedom of the contrarian.

EXCERPT: [...] This first motivation seems rather obvious. When we go against the status-quo we are setting ourselves apart from the world. We are not accepting what others do not even question. Our autonomy is about our belief to be self-directed rather than directed by others. Our uniqueness is assured through our willingness to be different than what it is popular to be. Here, respect for one’s independence and originality is more salient than the need for the social approval of conformity....

_
 
Last edited:
They tend not to have travelled more than a few hundred kilometres from the place they grew up. If they are American - as most are - then they have never travelled outside the United States, and many haven't travelled very much in the US either. Their knowledge of geography is rudimentary at best.
One has to wonder if they've never been to a seacoast with binoculars watching an outbound ship. :rolleyes:

They typically refuse to even look at evidence that refutes the flat earth. When it is presented to them, they just deny it (without giving any valid reasons, of course) and/or try to change the topic.
I suppose that answers it. Still rather amazing that a mind is capable of such contortionism. Which does make the whole flerfer phenomenon interesting as you say.
 
It's not an illusion at all. I ate tangerines and threw the peels into the sky, and they still fell back down. Gravity, damn it...
I knew a man who was blinded in one eye by a falling tangerine peel. In America, we have a song about it:

When the peel hits your eye,
Like a chunk of the sky,
That's amore!
 
Presumably because of my interest in science, Facebook likes to put a lot of Flerfer stuff in my feed.

I ignore it all.

I simply do not believe a single one of them has the sincere belief that the Earth is flat.
I think every last one of them is a Devil's Advocate. They are rejecting the perceived authoritarianism of science. And they want the luxury of having their own opinions, right or wrong.

I'm not suggesting each one of the is deliberately lying through ther teeth; I'm saying that in a society where they are safe, "truth" is an extravagance they can afford to reject. And so they do.

I think it's a strawman that they're not even aware of. I think what they'e really saying "Oh you eggheads, with all your logic and evidence, You won't browbeat me any longer. I'll decide what's true for me."
 
I knew a man who was blinded in one eye by a falling tangerine peel. In America, we have a song about it:

When the peel hits your eye,
Like a chunk of the sky,
That's amore!
Теперь я знаю что буду делать, если мне понравится какой-нибудь американский мужчина. Нужно просто забросать его мандариновой кожурой, стараясь попасть точно в глаз. Надеюсь, это его впечалит...
 
I think what they'e really saying "Oh you eggheads, with all your logic and evidence, You won't browbeat me any longer. I'll decide what's true for me."
That seems to be the contrarian side of it, as C C detailed in her link. The other pole being opportunism, where Mike Hughes was the example. (given his aerospace tech approach, I wonder if he was any relation to the aviation Hughes family) I'm open to a possible third side where actual mental health issues factor in, like paranoid schizophrenia or some sort of Truman Show delusion where the person believes the media create a simulated worldview.
 
Back
Top