Are 'Globers' Indoctrinated? (Spoiler: No) | FLERFPRATT 2

In this part of Flat Earth Points Refuted A Thousand Times, we take a look at the claim that that science education is just indoctrination, and that we have all just been brainwashed into believing that the Earth is round. Of course, this claim is grounded in complete ignorance of how both science and proper science education work.

My Twitter: @MartymerM81

[somerandomnameiguess]

When I hear flerfs call 'Globe-heads' indoctrinated, I'm always reminded of that monty python scene where they all chant "yes. We are all individuals."

[BoltFalco]

"To them, the difference between thinking freely and being an indoctrinated sheep is WHERE the information comes from, not whether it checks out" A wonderful way to put it; perfectly highlights the difference between education and indoctrination.

[RossM]

When Kepler couldn’t fit the observations into his preconceived world view he changed his world view. That’s why he is so revered by scientists.

[JennFaeAge]

Let's not forget, if someone has been discredited by experts this proves that the experts are in on the conspiracy (apparently)

[algi]

I think there should be way less data memorization in schools. Scientists who actually work in the field remember the data because they work with it so much that with time it just gets stuck in their mind. School children don't have to know every scientific data point, the effort to memorize those takes away from understanding the mechanisms.

[mamamheus]

*Thank you!* I have been very much behind the _how_ to think rather than _what_ to think concept for a long time. For any sceptical flat Earthers reading this, please continue on. I'm sorry it's long, but I hope you'll find it worthwhile.

When my children were in high school, during their 3rd year they had to make choices of what to study up to their first major exams at 16 (GCSEs - General Certificate in Secondary Education. You need these to leave school or remain to get A levels - required to go to university). Maths, English and at least 2 sciences were obligatory, but all other subjects were put in a table so they could pick out the ones from each column that they liked (with most subjects appearing more than once, because of the timetables for the next years, so that a wide range of subjects got a good chance of being chosen).

My advice (not my order) was that on top of the sciences they wanted to choose (some did the three, others did the two), they would benefit from choosing a language, a subject from the humanities, and something a bit more technical and/or practical (IT, design & craft technology, that sort of thing). In fact they had 5 subjects to choose, each coming under its own "family" of subjects. My reasons were that, e.g. choosing a language, even if they didn't like the languages on offer, they'd be spending the next two years (on top of the three they'd already spent learning one or two languages; French & German) learning _how_ to learn a language. Then, when they would be adults, they would never know if they might need to learn another one, or just require brushing up on the one they knew, so having that framework of how to learn one would be set in their minds already and it would give them a head start.

Similarly, to successfully complete a humanities' course, irrespective of what subject it was in, they would learn how to gather information and explain it, but with a different amount of emphasis on how the explanations would be written as opposed to the more brief & purely factual writing up of a science experiment. There's more to the language used in it, and a lot more thinking about outcomes, even what outcomes could possibly have happened had starting conditions been different. It sounds scientific but anyone who's taken history will know that outside of a bunch of facts, your essay will _not_ be like a report of a chemistry experiment!

From experience, I know that someone with good, say, history or politics essay writing skills will probably be good at writing out grant applications. My eldest, who is a scientist (a doctor of medical biochemistry, already well published), occasionally sends me applications to proofread, so I know that his learned ability to write a good story (best way of getting the grants boards to buy into your subject!) has become useful. And funnily enough, he decided to pay attention to me and learned German at school (my sister is married to a German and has lived there since the 70s, so he had a personal reason to do it, and got to go stay there over the summer before his exams). Just as well he did, because an invention that he and his boss worked on required him to visit some companies not far from my sister's place to do research on their products. He certainly understood where I was coming from then.

I know this is a bit of a tangent from the main outcome of your excellent video, but I would hope that someone who is caught up in this flat Earth rubbish will read this and see how your words about _how_ to think have been applied and used in real life. All of my children have got involved in health and/or education (it crosses over twice in their professions), and are successful in what they are doing. They are incredibly independent thinkers, as well as independent people, even though one has Asperger's and another has ADD. Yet both of those went to university and thrived. Both are doing great and we're proud of all of them. But we're proudest because they did it themselves, _not_ because we indoctrinated them.

[lreadlResurrected]

While there is no cure for willful ignorance, I respect your tilting at that windmill--for all the good it will do.
But it's nice to see you back, Marty.

[MetaphorUB]

I refuse to defend science against flerf claims anymore. Until they demonstrate a model that makes predictions, the flat earth and its arguments against science are non-starters to me.

[clemstevenson]

Some people are literally raised to accept conclusions that are not based upon the analysis of available data. "God did it" is a common example of accepting a conclusion, without first gathering supporting evidence. Indeed, there is no parametric data for god, and the concept of god is so vague as to be rendered too irrational to be considered of value. Anyone claiming that there is a conspiracy to hide the shape of the Earth would be expected to have gathered the necessary data, before making the claim.

[grapeshot]

Yeah when I served in the military, I got sent overseas to Japan, South Korea and the Middle East and you can literally see the curvature of the Earth.

[DaveHanson]

10:39 "Flat Earth conflicts with the frameworks of Physics, Astronomy, Geology, and Geography" -- this is why flerfs reject these branches of science, as well.

[Kualinar]

Yes, some times, scientists do perform some experiments «just to see what happens». BUT, those experiments are very often a starting point for some research. it goes like this :
I made that random experiment for the heck of it and got that result. Now, WHY did I got that result ? WHAT is the mechanism behind that result ?
Without that interrogation part, it's just kindergartner meddling. With that interrogation, it can become science.

[weldabar]

I still remember the first time in physics the teacher helped us make predictions. It felt like magic when our calculations predicted correctly. It was the old lob a marble at a given velocity and predict where it would land.

[SardonicSoul]

_'sighs'_ Of course the flerfs would come up with something as that. It is such a ridiculous claim, as to say that atheism is a religion.

[munstrumridcully]

Even among scientifically literate people here in the US tend to place too much value on explanatory power rather than predicted power.

I would say predictive power is far more important than explanatory power. For instance a theoretical model can explain something very well but if its predictions fail it's useless. And the reverse is true-- a theoretical model may have very little explanatory power, but if it predicts empirical results accurately it will have utility.

[doranku]

Excellent, sadly no science deniers will get the message.

[enoksxf]

I have a Christian friend who calls me a sheep.... And Jesus (purportedly) literally called his followers sheep.

[eleventhchimp]

At least here in sweden, when we as kids first are taught multiplication, we are taught the products of all combinations of the numbers 1 through 10. If you are never taught more than this; if you are never taught how to calculate the product of any two numbers, or even that you can, you might believe that just being taught the answers to a bunch of problems is how math works.
Science works the same way. At the level of education where most flerfs left off, they were still just taught the answers.

[markdoldon]

I have long felt that flerfer's misunderstanding of the need for models is at the core of the problem. How many times have we heard the Eric Dubay crowd cry "we do not need a working model, we just need to demand that globists prove theirs" Yes, you DO need a predictive model which works for all situations simultaneously. If you cannot even agree upon what your MAP looks like, nor any demonstrable model for the sun and moon and stars that actively predicts sunrise, sunset, time zones, polar declination, or anything else, all within the same structure you have NOTHING but noise!

[shadoweaglebear]

That is why I dislike science education in the states....

Read and recite.