Is YouTube Responsible For Creating Flat-Earth Believers?

[BillTre]

The proper field of science to establish the non-existence of a living organism on Earth is population biology, which is at best an inexact science in general, and even worse when accurately assessing very small populations and determining non-existence. There are so many documented examples of organisms believed to be extinct (zero population) and later rediscovered, that at best one should consider claims of absence to be probabilistic for a given hypothetical species.

At least there are now environmental DNA assays, but they are probably better for smaller organisms with greater population sizes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Critical thinking and the ability to judge sources has never been more important. Even rather intelligent people are duped and swayed by snake oil marketer pseudo-scientists.

 

[collinsmark]

I thought I should post this since I don't remember seeing other posts on this. Social media sites are at least making an effort these days (finally) to cut down on misinformation. At least it's a start.

YouTube winning race to clamp down on misinformation

 

[pinball1970]

And the flu vaccine hasn't really been "proven" to work. It's effectiveness varies widely year to year. By the CDC's own summary publication, effectiveness has varied from 10% to 60% from 2004 to the present. Pro-vaxxers who espouse that vaccines are "proven" to work should be embarrassed by such an ignorant, sweeping claim in light of the mediocre results for the flu vaccine. These vaccination shills and their exaggerated claims are part of the reason for ongoing skepticism regarding claims of vaccine effectiveness.
See:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

I was really referring to the science behind vaccination not the effectiveness with respect to individual cases, some are better than others granted.

Vaccinations programmes are intended for populations not individuals.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I was really referring to the science behind vaccination not the effectiveness with respect to individual cases, some are better than others granted.

Most medical professionals recommend that choices be made regarding individual drugs by independently considering the risks (reading the label) and benefits of each individual drug. Sure, there are some scientific principles that apply to all vaccinations. But there is also plenty of scientific information relative to each individual drug and the disease(s) against which each individual drug provides some level of protection. The implication that personal decisions against specific vaccinations always implies buying into pseudoscience or a misunderstanding of vaccination science is unwarranted. There may be cases where pseudoscience and misunderstanding play a role, but there are many cases where the choice is more based on due diligence in understanding the risks and benefits of each vaccination for the specific patient.

Vaccinations programmes are intended for populations not individuals.

Aah, the myth of herd immunity. Herd immunity is an important consideration for some vaccinations, but it is not important for others. How many people are documented to have caught rabies or tetanus from another person? If herd immunity is essential to the effectiveness of the malaria vaccine, why is there no general program for malaria vaccination in the US? The science behind all vaccinations is simply not the same. These sweeping generalizations are both bad science and bad information for the broader community, since this bad information is so easily debunked by the anti-vaxxers.

Here's a question especially for the men over 30 who think herd immunity is essential and there is a moral imperative to get vaccinated to protect the health of others: Have you gotten your HPV vaccine yet, or are you a hypocrite? HPV is a disease where the science definitely shows important contributions from herd immunity. But the vaccine is kinda pricey in the US ($200), and men are more likely to be transmission vectors than to suffer the worst consequences of the disease (cervical cancer). But whether a given man will even benefit the herd immunity of the population he is a part of depends strongly on his personal risk factors. Some men simply have a zero probability of being HPV vectors and have no possible benefit from the vaccination. Other men simply have a vanishingly small probability of being HPV vectors, so the vaccination costs are not recommended from a public health viewpoint.

So you see, the science behind vaccination really does need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. (As does the science behind all medications and drugs one may be considering. Read labels, talk to your personal physician(s), do your research, and be well informed medical consumers.)

The science behind vaccinations is much more complex and nuanced than the science disproving a flat earth.

 

[pinball1970]

The science behind vaccinations is much more complex and nuanced than the science disproving a flat earth.

I was not comparing the science behind vaccinations to flat Earth science/evidence, the initial point was the distrust of science and scientists.
Moon Landings may have been more appropriate or even 911 inside job, more of reference to rejecting the establishment.

In terms of vaccination programs, HPV was available to teenage girls a couple of years ago and is now available to young boys on the NHS I believe.
Flu is available free to high risk groups (myself included) and jabs relating to high risk areas overseas (Hep B Typhus Cholera etc) Rabies was optional

If my GP recommends I have a boost or new jab I will have it.

I am not a scientist but from the studies I have read and history of things like Smallpox Polio and the result of reading the label and opting out of MMR and resulting outbreaks/deaths I will say that OVERALL vaccination works and is proven to work

 

[pinball1970]

The science behind vaccinations is much more complex and nuanced than the science disproving a flat earth.

We are on flat Earth so I don't want to go too off topic with this, Ill send you some studies / data to you

 

[BillTre]

Aah, the myth of herd immunity. Herd immunity is an important consideration for some vaccinations, but it is not important for others.

Herd immunity is NOT a myth. This is an overstatement. The following argument is strictly limited to this overstatement aspect.
The most obvious cases for this involve herds of domesticated animals. Vets are familiar with this.
Rather, it is something that is an appropriate consideration in appropriate situations, but not in others.

The idea of herd immunity is that many individuals in the population in question have an immunity to infection. This prevents a cycle of infection within the population once an infection is introduced such that large numbers of infected individuals don't be the result.
The effectiveness of this approach can be affected by (@Dr. Courtney says) various biological characteristics of the situation, such as:

• current levels of infection in the population (rabies is low in most human populations)
  
• existence/non-existence of a disease in an area to make the probability of infection non-trivial
  
• different potential paths of infection in the population (humans are not often infected by other humans; new infections are usually from animals and human to human is not a common result after the initial infection)

However, in the case of rabies, an immunization (while not justified by herd immunity) can prevent an initial infection with a nasty disease that is unpleasant to have and treat. This an other immunizations are often given when people travel to areas with endemic rabies infections in animal populations. For example, I know of people who have gotten rabies immunizations before going to India for field work.

Another interesting example is the spread of mosquito born diseases like malaria and yellow fever as the mosquito vectors become more established in certain areas of the US. In this case human to mosquito to human transmission can become possible (with the presence of the mosquito vector) and considering herd immunity does become justified as the potential for infection increases, even if current rates of infection are low. In this case, an alternative (or additional) preventative measure is the eradication of the mosquito vectors (formerly using DDT, and now (possibly), possibly now using genetic techniques to sterilize (or otherwise interfere with) wild populations of mosquitos.

 

[BWV]

But much public discourse also fails, for example, your lumping all vaccinations together, as if the risk(and cost)/benefit for all vaccines is the same for all patients. I'm more a proponent that the patient (or parents in the case of children) should assess the risks and benefits, read each vaccination label, discuss the risks and benefits with their personal physician, and decide for themselves

And the flu vaccine hasn't really been "proven" to work. It's effectiveness varies widely year to year. By the CDC's own summary publication, effectiveness has varied from 10% to 60% from 2004 to the present. Pro-vaxxers who espouse that vaccines are "proven" to work should be embarrassed by such an ignorant, sweeping claim in light of the mediocre results for the flu vaccine. These vaccination shills and their exaggerated claims are part of the reason for ongoing skepticism regarding claims of vaccine effectiveness.
See:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

Alot of straw men there. Who are these mandatory vaxxers claiming the flu vaccine is perfect?

There are multiple benefits from the flu vaccine:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

One would think that a 65% reduction in the risk of death from flu in a healthy child is reason enough:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p0403-flu-vaccine.html

 

[Drakkith]

We are on flat Earth so I don't want to go too off topic with this, Ill send you some studies / data to you

I sincerely hope you're not serious.

 

[BWV]

Also the idea that people should 'do their own science' is ridiculous. This is the problem, not the solution. No one can watch a few YouTube videos or google some article or even read a few real research papers and come to a better conclusion than the consensus of experts within a given discipline. People should absolutely not do their own research on vaccines or physics but trust the experts. The experts are not trustworthy because they are good people, they are trustworthy because the process of science works. Educate people to trust the process of science and do not expect them to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

What percentage of laypeople who post here with their own conclusions about physics are full of crap? Why would we expect a better outcome in other disciplines?

 

[kuruman]

The lack of belief in the sphericity of the Earth is quite harmless to the doubters and to those around them. I am much smaller than the Earth's radius and I can live my everyday life, do my job, do my chores, etc. pretending that the Earth is flat without any problems. Am I an ostrich with its head stuck in the sand? I think not. The only time when I gave some thought to the matter was a few moths ago when I flew non-stop from Dallas to Beijing and crossed the international date line over the Bering Strait. I was intently looking at the local time on the flight path display clock. In one blink it changed discontinuously from 3:14 pm to 10:14 am. I spent quite some time thinking about what it means for two people one mile apart across the line looking at the same sun and sky, one of them in the afternoon and one of them in the morning of the next day. It boggled my mind but the rest of the passengers around me seemed not to care. So I think that the flat Earth believers are quite harmless and that they should not be persuaded otherwise even if their ranks swell as a result of YouTube videos. The danger lies in the minds of those who don't believe that global warming is happening or that if it is, it's not caused by human activity. As for vaccines, I am old enough to bear the scar of small pox vaccination and guess what? Not only I did not get small pox, but also that dreadful disease has been eradicated. Thanks to all of us who were vaccinated, the younger generations don't have to worry about small pox and discuss instead the pros and cons of vaccination.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Also the idea that people should 'do their own science' is ridiculous. This is the problem, not the solution. No one can watch a few YouTube videos or google some article or even read a few real research papers and come to a better conclusion than the consensus of experts within a given discipline. People should absolutely not do their own research on vaccines or physics but trust the experts. The experts are not trustworthy because they are good people, they are trustworthy because the process of science works. Educate people to trust the process of science and do not expect them to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

What percentage of laypeople who post here with their own conclusions about physics are full of crap? Why would we expect a better outcome in other disciplines?

The issue with medications (including vaccines) is due diligence to understand how the medication applies to their own situation and to weigh the costs and risks vs the benefits. I simply recommend patients read the labels, understand the contraindications, discuss it with their personal physicians, and make informed decisions.

This is nothing like drawing a new scientific conclusion that applies to others. It is simply owning one's own medical care. Some examples:
1. Many medication labels specify specific contraindications, risks, and allergies. For example, the HPV label mentions sensitivity to yeast. Often, providers make decisions based on little more than the question, "Are you allergic to any medications?"
2. After popping positive on some A1C and fasting blood glucose numbers, my physician recommended Metformin, a common medication prescribed for diabetes and those at high risk (like me). But after some research, I learned that my identical twin brother had adverse reactions to this medication in ways that are unsurprising giving the guidance on the label. Discussing ALL the available information with my several medical professionals, it was decided that rather than risk these likely adverse reactions (since my personal biochemistry is very similar to my twin), the better course was to work to reduce my diabetes risk through diet and exercise without a medication that demonstrated adverse reactions in my identical twin. This course has proven successful for several years, and my personal physician is pleased with the course of action. Would you still recommend against personal research in this case? What evidence can you offer that I would not have had the same negative reactions to Metformin as my identical twin? Was a physicist in error to do medical research on his own behalf?
3. Once again, I popped positive on some blood cholesterol measurements, and my physicians first response was to prescribe a statin (Lipitor). Went into scientist mode and discovered (once again), that my identical twin had experienced some of the contraindications described on the label, but had been able to bring his cholesterol under control through specific lifestyle changes. With all the info, the consensus among my physicians was to skip the statins and work the diet and exercise angles. Working so far, but not as much proof of success yet as for skipping the Metformin.
4. The current consensus of experts (CDC) is that men of a certain age should be vaccinated against HPV. Have you made your appointment yet if you are included? However, most of the experts at the insurance companies disagree with the recommendation for adult men, so most insurance companies are not paying for it. Do you trust the CDC enough to pay out of pocket for $120 each for three vaccinations plus the cost of the doctor visits? "The CDC says so" just isn't good enough for me. I remain unvaccinated, as do my sons (and my daughter). My three children are accomplished scientists in their own right who have reviewed the available info (including the labels), considered the risks, costs, and benefits, and remain unconvinced for their unique situations.

It's not a matter of repeating the experiments (flat Earth or vaccinations), but weighing the information and deciding how it applies to one's own situation. Science is about "show me the data" not replacing one set of authorities (21st century scientists) for another (Catholic clerics of the middle ages.)

 

[Drakkith]

@Dr. Courtney I don't think that's the type of 'research' that BWV is talking about. There's a difference between deciding whether a medication is the best choice for you by using information gathered by medical science and conducting your own research to decide if vaccines 'work'.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

@Dr. Courtney I don't think that's the type of 'research' that BWV is talking about. There's a difference between deciding whether a medication is the best choice for you by using information gathered by medical science and conducting your own research to decide if vaccines 'work'.

Everyone needs to decide if a given medication is likely to "work" for their own circumstance and needs.

It is just as errant for pro-vaxxers to interpret "vaccines don't work" as 0% effectiveness as it is for anti vaxxers to interpret "vaccines do work" as purportedly 100% effectiveness.

For any medication to "work" or "not work" really means weighing the risks and costs vs. the benefits for a specific medication and patient in question. Thus I can say with complete validity "The HPV Vaccine will not work for me" though it may work well enough for the typical 12 year old American girl. Likewise, I can say, "The 40% expected effectiveness rate for the 2018-2019 flu vaccine does not work for me" given all the available information. But it would be just as wrong for me to say to you (being ignorant of your situation) "The HPV vaccine will not work for you" or "The flu vaccine will not work for you" as it would be for you to claim to me "You should get the HPV vaccine, because it works" or "You should get the flu vaccine because it works."

The question of a flat or round Earth is a universal truth that is the same for everyone. Weighing the risks and benefits of specific medications (including vaccines) is patient specific. I know scientists like all scientific truths to be universal, but the effectiveness and advisability of medications simply is not.

 

[DennisN]

The pathology arises for two reasons, one of which is the loss of distinction between having a set of particular beliefs and creating a personal identity: in their case, the belief forms the basis of self-identity. Then, there is a strong disincentive to changing the belief that the Earth is flat because that means admitting their entire identity is false.

The second underlying reason is the psychosocial benefit. Rather then being a nameless cog in the giant modern industrial machine, they can literally create an alternate identity where they are a widely recognized leader (here is where social media comes in). Socially, these marginalized and alienated people can then satisfy the deep need for friendship and family which they are otherwise lacking.

Interesting, I haven't seen the documentary you mentioned, but I was about to say something similar. You got me interested, so I am going to see the documentary.

Also, I think there are people who are "heretics" for the sake of being a heretic.
And I am pretty sure that if the Earth actually was flat, there would be a number of people that would think otherwise.

 

[Drakkith]

Everyone needs to decide if a given medication is likely to "work" for their own circumstance and needs.

It is just as errant for pro-vaxxers to interpret "vaccines don't work" as 0% effectiveness as it is for anti vaxxers to interpret "vaccines do work" as purportedly 100% effectiveness.

Indeed. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on this matter.

The question of a flat or round Earth is a universal truth that is the same for everyone. Weighing the risks and benefits of specific medications (including vaccines) is patient specific.

Agreed.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Indeed. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on this matter.

Perhaps there is no one stating it explicitly on PF, but I have been excoriated on social media for allowing my teenage children to research the issues and make their own informed decisions regarding flu, HPV, and meningitis vaccines. Their viewpoint was that I was a "science denier" and that allowing my teens the option to refuse these vaccines was denying the historical success of the polio and smallpox vaccines. Being as ignorant as a "flat earther" is a common accusation in social media debates on a variety of subjects, including vaccines. But I can't think of many issues in personal medical care decisions that are anywhere near as overwhelmingly clear and convincing as the evidence against a flat earth. Unless someone is denying the historical success of vaccines in specific cases, I don't really see much comparison between personal decisions against specific medications and claims that the Earth is flat. But those who hold out the historical successes of vaccines relating to smallpox and polio as if every vaccine on the schedule holds the same expected promise are also exaggerating their position to the point of pseudoscience.

 

[OCR]

... I don't really see much comparison between personal decisions against specific medications and claims that the Earth is flat. But those who hold out the historical successes of vaccines relating to smallpox and polio as if every vaccine on the schedule holds the same expected promise are also exaggerating their position to the point of pseudoscience.

Ah, there you go... . .

However, in the case of rabies, an immunization (while not justified by herd immunity) can prevent an initial infection with a nasty disease that is unpleasant to have and treat.

Yes, our Vets and our pets get vaccinated... I once asked a Vet if he would recommend that someone like me

(a plane plain old rancher), get vaccinated... he said "no"...?

Oh!... damn, maybe he didn't like me, I never though about that. .

Rabies vaccine - Wikipedia

However, in the case of rabies...

...Once the patient becomes symptomatic, treatment is almost never effective and mortality is over 99%.

Rabies - Wikipedia . God, I hate seeing the picture of that poor dog... . I only know of one case where a person survived rabies after becoming symptomatic... Jeanna Giese.

Survival after Treatment of Rabies with Induction of Coma | NEJM

.

 

[pinball1970]

I sincerely hope you're not serious.

What's the issue?

 

[BillTre]

I sincerely hope you're not serious.

I think he is talking about the subject of the thread, not his opinion on the shape of the earth.

 

[OCR]

The lack of belief in the sphericity of the Earth is quite harmless to the doubters and to those around them.

Oh my, kuruman!... your post is in conflict with your signature. . .
"I know one thing - that I know no thing."

The danger lies in the minds of those who don't believe that global warming is happening...

Now see, kuruman... if I believed in the nonsphericity of the Earth, I could say "global warming is

happening, but only on the other side"... .And, kuruman, you have to know...

In one blink it changed discontinuously from 3:14 pm to 10:14 am.

... that you can not time travel in a discontinuous manner, such as you state. .

I am of the very strong opinion, kuruman... you blinked more than once. . .

Lol... J/K

Carry on.

.

 

[atyy]

But much public discourse also fails, for example, your lumping all vaccinations together, as if the risk(and cost)/benefit for all vaccines is the same for all patients. I'm more a proponent that the patient (or parents in the case of children) should assess the risks and benefits, read each vaccination label, discuss the risks and benefits with their personal physician, and decide for themselves on a case-by-case basis. My view is that cases where the usual childhood vaccinations (MMR, DTap, Polio) would be inadvisable are very rare. But most mandatory-vaxxers paint with such a broad brush that they leave the impression (or state it explicitly) that the risk(and cost)/benefit analysis is just as compelling for other vaccines such as HPV, meningitis, and the annual flu shot. I've heard some even advocate for more widespread vaccination against malaria other diseases that the CDC usually only recommends in cases of foreign travel or increased exposure risk. But I got to admit, I'm not vaccinated against HPV, and in years when my exposure risks are low (not teaching, etc.), I may skip the flu shot it it requires an additional trip to a provider and out of pocket expense. (Always got it when employer recommended and provided it on site for free.) Several providers were downright miffed at my wife and I when we opted to allow our teenage children (all aspiring scientists) to read the labels, assess their own risks and decide for themselves on vaccines that were only recommended on the schedule. These are students who have published original work in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, scored in the mid-30s on the science portion of the ACT, and placed first at state level science fairs. Science education has not failed them. After reading the labels on certain vaccines, they were simply not convinced the benefits outweigh the risks. None of them believe in a flat Earth though, cause the evidence against a flat Earth is simply much more compelling than the evidence that the benefits of certain vaccines outweigh the risks.

And the flu vaccine hasn't really been "proven" to work. It's effectiveness varies widely year to year. By the CDC's own summary publication, effectiveness has varied from 10% to 60% from 2004 to the present. Pro-vaxxers who espouse that vaccines are "proven" to work should be embarrassed by such an ignorant, sweeping claim in light of the mediocre results for the flu vaccine. These vaccination shills and their exaggerated claims are part of the reason for ongoing skepticism regarding claims of vaccine effectiveness.
See:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm

I don't agree. You are taking well founded remarks out of context.

 

[nsaspook]

I think a large part of this is the distrust of authority.

I think a large part of the 'believers' are believers because 'Flat-Earth' works for them in their daily lives. It's a simplistic model that works with small scales and is easily displayed on flat computer monitors.

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Also the idea that people should 'do their own science' is ridiculous. This is the problem, not the solution. No one can watch a few YouTube videos or google some article or even read a few real research papers and come to a better conclusion than the consensus of experts within a given discipline. People should absolutely not do their own research on vaccines or physics but trust the experts. The experts are not trustworthy because they are good people, they are trustworthy because the process of science works. Educate people to trust the process of science and do not expect them to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

What percentage of laypeople who post here with their own conclusions about physics are full of crap? Why would we expect a better outcome in other disciplines?

I totally disagree with this stance. This is the stance that creates the impression of an elitist scientific "priesthood" that looks down on all us mere mortals. And more to the point, what you are advocating is reducing the scientific literacy of the public: telling them that they shouldn't even be attempting to learn the science.

The solution to poor scientific literacy is more science engagement, not less! You don't solve flat-earth and anti-vax by taking down bad youtube videos, you do it by increasing the number of good sources of information.

Doctors need to have the stance that the patients are partners in their own care. Because they are partners and they are individuals. They need to talk to each other about individual factors that influence what is the best type of care.

And scientists need to engage with the public, on the public's level. Not so much as partners, but as mentors. That's what PhysicsForums is!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The solution to poor scientific literacy is more science engagement, not less! You don't solve flat-earth and anti-vax by taking down bad youtube videos, you do it by increasing the number of good sources of information.

And teaching critical thinking. The problem is the public's attraction and digestion of poor or bait click science. One problem is that doubt and skepticism leads in adoption of bad science. Doses of doubt and skepticism is unfortunately uncomfortable for most people so it's easy to satisfy them with bad science instead of continuing to investigate and think critically. One's own pride also inhibits going back on their skepticism to the original conclusion. For example if someone has doubts about gravity, they are attracted by an alternative view that supports their doubt. Even if it's not completely satisfying it's better to digest internally than to go back to mainstream gravity, because they would internally admit defeat and render the skepticism a waste of time. So they dig themselves deeper.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that we have to look at what seems persuasive to many people. Fancy rhetoric and flashy videos may do much more than words on a page. So one will have to try to beat the flat-earthers at their own game, by making lots of diagrams and animations and videos. That should be an interesting exercise, and one might be able to convince some undergraduate to make a short video about how we discovered that our homeworld is approximately spherical.

As to science education being mostly rote, that has been criticized for a *long* time:

Escaping the rhetoric of “the past” in science education | Boundary Vision noting such criticisms over the decades
Old school science education | The Scientific Teacher noting Thomas Henry Huxley on science education:
On the Educational Value of the Natural History Sciences (1854)
Scientific Education: Notes of an After-Dinner Speech (1869)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So one will have to try to beat the flat-earthers at their own game, by making lots of diagrams and animations and videos.

The problem is that bad science is shame-less when it comes to deceptive marketing, but good science has to be very careful with marketing because good science is always evolving. The laymen public will always defer to easy sources.

 

[BillTre]

The problem is that bad science is shame-less when it comes to deceptive marketing, but good science has to be very careful with marketing because good science is always evolving. The laymen public will always defer to easy sources.

This is true, but that does not mean that good science can not be presented in an engaging and intellectually sound manner.
It is just more difficult and requires working more to achieve it and "Trying Harder".
I personally am interested in the combining sound science with explanatory graphics and (perhaps) videos to make more interesting explanations.

Any source can be easily accessible physically (such as by putting it on youtube).
Easily understandable requires making the underlying concepts accessible at some level to those with a lower level of scientific literacy. Good visuals can helpful with this.

 

[lpetrich]

True, one has to be careful. I confess that I cringe when I see schematics repeated too often without noting that they are schematics and not an approximation of real appearance. Like atoms. Electrons don't travel in well-defined paths in them, but are more like standing waves over an atom's extent. So an atom look like a fuzzy ball. Likewise for nuclei -- they don't look like clusters of grapes but instead like fuzzy balls, though with much less fuzz than atoms. Likewise, hadrons look like fuzzy balls.

As to illustrating how we learned that the Earth was round, it should be easy to make some video to show some stars being visible at low latitudes but not at high latitudes, and also lunar eclipses. They always happen when the Moon is full, and that is when the Moon is in the opposite direction from the Sun. So the Moon is in just the position to fall into the Earth's shadow. Also note that the Earth has a circular shadow no matter when the eclipse happens. One can even make some cutesy video about a problem with round-earthism: wouldn't everything on the other side fall off? Also a more recent test of the Earth's shape: talking on the phone or text chatting with someone in some distant place. Daytime in one place will be nighttime in another place.

 

[mfb]

You don't solve flat-earth and anti-vax by taking down bad youtube videos, you do it by increasing the number of good sources of information.

Youtube has more videos than they could ever suggest you, and the number of suggestions they offer visibly won't change. Increasing the number of good videos in the suggestions is equivalent to reducing the number of bad video suggestions.

I was intently looking at the local time on the flight path display clock. In one blink it changed discontinuously from 3:14 pm to 10:14 am. I spent quite some time thinking about what it means for two people one mile apart across the line looking at the same sun and sky, one of them in the afternoon and one of them in the morning of the next day.

Your clock probably changed from the origin time zone to the destination time zone, both are not adjacent to the dateline.
The time zones adjacent to the dateline have +-2 hours relative to each other.

 

[BWV]

People tend to be overconfident in the conclusions they draw from a limited amount of information - this is documented often as the Dunning Kruger effect. A few good science courses in high school or college does not reduce this tendency. Numerous examples exist of even great scientists going astray when they believe their expertise in one area gives them a comparable expertise outside of their field - take Linus Pauling and vitamin C for example

Not saying that lay people should not be taught science, but they should also get more education on the philosophy and process of science.

 

[A.T.]

A researcher from Texas Tech University presented her findings at the recent AAAS Meeting, and found that most people started to believe in the Flat Earth idea after viewing YouTube videos!

As long you don't have to do any maths to make quantitative physical predictions (and most people don't), it doesn't really matter how you think about it. We choose the mathematically simplest description by Occam's Razor, but there is no need to get into arguments about beliefs.

 

[BillTre]

People tend to be overconfident in the conclusions they draw from a limited amount of information - this is documented often as the Dunning Kruger effect. A few good science courses in high school or college does not reduce this tendency. Numerous examples exist of even great scientists going astray when they believe their expertise in one area gives them a comparable expertise outside of their field - take Linus Pauling and vitamin C for example

People also tend to be overconfident in their own abilities (or perhaps that of their social group).
This can make my hesitancy to immediately jump into things seem more like a smart and careful re-examination of the situation before committing to an action!
(Overconfidence might be of selective value because it at least gets you doing something behaviorally (as opposed to being paralyzed in doubt).)

 

[russ_watters]

Youtube has more videos than they could ever suggest you, and the number of suggestions they offer visibly won't change. Increasing the number of good videos in the suggestions is equivalent to reducing the number of bad video suggestions.

It's not a math problem, it's a people problem. Censorship and 'shut up and do what I tell you' attitudes from doctors breed distrust and distaste. You don't fix disinformation with censorship, you fix it with better correct speech. Not to increase the signal to noise ratio, but to engage people. To draw them into positive and informative conversations.

In medicine, ordinary people and scientists have to interact, and making the interaction positive on an interpersonal and intellectual level is what breeds trust. People believe doctors - heck, or auto mechanics - who talk to them like they are real people who are capable of understanding the issues. When someone talks down to a person, they feel like the person may be trying to cheat them and the message becomes less believable.

For science, maintaining a tone of positive engagement is a critical part of PF's success and mission, it's a tough balance and its something we don't always get right - and even if we do it the best we can, it doesn't always succeed. Not everyone is reachable, but trying to set a positive and engaging tone is how you reach the most people.