The Nirmukta Freethought Community

http://fixedearth.com/

A few days ago i was involved in a discussion with a person who claims that the Earth is not rotating. On explaining the phenomenon in light of science and practical experiments he replied "It is very confusing please read these links", and pasted a couple of links on freemasons, new world order and some other cosnpiracy theories.

I have to admit, conspiracy theories are very addictive and i had wasted almost 2 years of my life collecting evidences until one day when i realised 'i am going no where'.

(03-05-2010 05:58 PM)Azad Wrote:  A few days ago i was involved in a discussion with a person who claims that the Earth is not rotating. On explaining the phenomenon in light of science and practical experiments he replied "It is very confusing please read these links", and pasted a couple of links on freemasons, new world order and some other cosnpiracy theories.

I have to admit, conspiracy theories are very addictive and i had wasted almost 2 years of my life collecting evidences until one day when i realised 'i am going no where'.

I had a small interaction with the same person on a friend's page. He came up with the one world govt. illuminati stuff. And was offended when I mentioned that it is a conspiracy theory. His belief in the fixed earth made it clear to me ;) He then proceeded to email me a whole lot of his 'research' on the subject. It is as good as an ideology. Conspiracy theories are in reality simple explanations to complex problems and reeks of confirmation bias. It does not make sense.

I can relate with Azad on this. I have felt the fascination in conspiracy theories in my youth, mostly because of a group of friends that I used to hang out with. We read a lot of alternative history books that contained pages and pages of the most fantastic tales. It's hard to tell what's true once you're in a bit of the way.

That said, I don't think I ever really believed in any of them. I was always far more skeptical than the others.

Quote:Conspiracy theories are in reality simple explanations to complex problems and reeks of confirmation bias.

Sajit, I'd never thought about it that way. That sounds like a very accurate and concise way of describing them.

I read michael shermer's article on 9/11 conspiracy theory in Scientific American: He (or it was some other scientist/engineer) talks about what he calls as "reverse scientific method" which is basically picking preliminary evidence to suit your theory and then building your evidence around the theory. This is totally non scientific, it is very tempting and we do it all the time inadvertently in our daily lives ( ref: http://www.amazon.com/How-Know-What-Isnt...0029117062 ). thats what makes conspiracy theories all the more attractive.



"Critics of these conspiracy theories say they are a form of conspiracism common throughout history after a traumatic event in which conspiracy theories emerge as a mythic form of explanation.[172] A related criticism addresses the form of research on which the theories are based. Thomas W. Eagar, an engineering professor at MIT, suggested they “use the ‘reverse scientific method’. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn’t fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.” Eagar’s criticisms also exemplify a common stance that the theories are best ignored. “I’ve told people that if the argument gets too mainstream, I’ll engage in the debate.” This, he continues, happened when Steve Jones took up the issue."

Interpreted by rigorous Charvaks, moving earth is a lie. After all, their direct, empirical perception is that planets move around a stationary earth.

Do Charvaks subscribe to geo centric model?

(05-09-2010 10:18 AM)rcscwc Wrote:  Interpreted by rigorous Charvaks, moving earth is a lie. After all, their direct, empirical perception is that planets move around a stationary earth.

Do Charvaks subscribe to geo centric model?

Thank you for brilliantly illustrating the strawman argument. The Internet shall remember this.

(If you didn't get that, ponder this - how in the name of FSM is your reply relevant to this thread?)

Well given that our understanding of science is advanced enough to switch frames of reference. We could just as easily construct and explain all our laws from a point of view of a stationary earth. Its just that, the math gets ugly. This is a mild deviation but also food for thought.

A simple experiment with a device called the faucault's pendulum will prove that the earth rotates around an axis.

(30-10-2011 12:41 AM)Alan DSouza Wrote:  A simple experiment with a device called the faucault's pendulum will prove that the earth rotates around an axis.

Here is a cool flash based tutorial explaining the basics of pendulums, what the ancients tried to prove the earth's axial rotation and how the pendulum finally solved the riddle.

http://www.calacademy.org/products/pendulum/