Losing the ability to describe the Silurian hypothesis or other improbable ideas without prescribing them as objective truths doesn't feel like a triumph. The inability to have a discussion without a pop-materialist crusader interjecting, "But it isn't real!!!" feels like a hindrance.
Flat Earth was just one example to illustrate the trend. Clearly it triggered posters to sneer at disfavored out-groups.
>It’s the dumbest, most falsifiable of the stupid conspiracy theories, mixed in with a solid dose of religious fundamentalist. It’s not just games, at least not for everyone. Far too many people take it seriously...
So we should accept this trend and appeal to the lowest common denominator, because some heretics might believe the wrong thing? If nothing else, we should appreciate that the religious types describe their world in terms of faith. There's no slight of hand in their presuppositions. They know when they are accepting presuppositions on faith. From my side, one of the biggest criticisms of some the fundamentalists would be their intolerance of differing world views. The above quote is no better in that regard.
>...don’t present fantasies as established facts.
Again, there's an important distinction between prescribing something as an objective truth and describing it for the sake of discussion. Losing the ability to do the latter because some are unable to appreciate the distinction lowers the bar. Forbidding an entire class of hypotheticals because the hoi polloi might not appreciate the distinction is an exercise in paternalism. Although the paternalism feels less than genuine in this case. Equally likely that tribalistic ulterior motives are at play.
Consider found-footage horror films or reality TV. Clearly there is a value in presenting the fictional as real. Would we demand disclaimers to protect the public? If that isn't absurd enough, consider that some regard explicitly fictional events and locations from Marvel films as real.
>Americans think Wakanda and Zamunda are real places
If we follow this line of reasoning, even pop-culture hasn't lowered the bar enough for truthiness to prevail.
>> Flat-earth is typically used as a pejorative at HN.
>As it should be, given the above. It has become part of the wider conspiracy-sphere
Perhaps instead of lowering the bar to protect the public from what posters here describe as unacceptable beliefs, we should raise the bar. Perhaps we shouldn't be using pejoratives or sneering at others. Instead we should seek to have stimulating discussions, question our own preconceptions and recognize that HN exists within its own bubble. Otherwise, what is the point?
>And then surprised again how quickly they drop it if the belief becomes goes out of fashion and fails to signal in-group membership for whichever bubble
> Perhaps instead of lowering the bar to protect the public from what posters here describe as unacceptable beliefs, we should raise the bar.
Which bar is being lowered? What do you even mean by that?
> Perhaps we shouldn't be using pejoratives or sneering at others.
When they are pushing demonstrably stupid, scientifically illiterate ideas as factual, we absolutely should call this out.
> Instead we should seek to have stimulating discussions, question our own preconceptions
When someone brings up flat earth theories it is likely they are doing it because they're -
a) A true believer, deep in a hole of false belief, angry that the government is hiding the flat-earth truth from them
b) Grifting those true believers
Such people aren't challenging preconceptions, they generally either don't understand what they're showing to others as evidence and don't understand what's wrong with it, or they're actively hostile to discussion because their identity is invested in conspiracy theories, or they're actively hostile because any debate threatens their income stream.
> recognize that HN exists within its own bubble. Otherwise, what is the point
I again don't understand what it is you want here? There are no two ways about it, we know that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Getting "outside the bubble" means what? Recognising that there are people who believe otherwise? There are, and they should be pitied. It's not a matter of point of view.
Nobody's stopping you having an amusing little conversation about how a flat earth might work, hell, some of the funniest fiction I know of is set on a Discworld and if you read "Strata" by the same author, you'll find some sci-fi thought experiments around it, and they're great. And nobody's stopping this guy talking about the Silurian hypothesis. In fact surely such things are even more fun if you look at the limitations and objections - how would a Silurian population fit into what we know about the geological record? Someone coming along and saying "Ah, but where's the change in mineral make-up for reason x, y and z, your civilisation would certianly leave that trace?" can add to that, because now you can go back to your hypothesis and account for it! All good fun. It's when you start pushing it as factual and something that did happen, that you'll get people fact-checking.
Honestly your post reads a little like trolling - you seem to be intentionally conflating the intellectual pursuit of stimulating, slightly fantastical discourse with the large population of people who irrationally cling to bullshit.
Look at a different topic for a minute - free energy. Lots of sci-fi exists in which it is posited. Lots of thought experiments exist about it, about the effects it might have on society etc. But when people try to say that they have found a way to do it, we should be sceptical until they show results. And then when they start to monetise this based of hype, should we not call this out? At that point we often see points such as yours raised - change your world view, you should be open to being challenged, isn't it possible you just don't understand the science? But all they really are is exhortations to blind faith, and cover for people who are actively exploiting that faith and the ignorance of others for their own gain.
>When someone brings up flat earth theories it is likely they are doing it because they're...
...using it as a pejorative.
Disappointed this thread devolved into even more tilting against the much maligned flat-earthers and religion. They seem to be behind every bush, brandishing their heretical theories and 'antiquated' beliefs. If anything this speaks to the original point of my concise comment.
>Honestly your post reads a little like trolling - you seem to be intentionally conflating the intellectual pursuit of stimulating, slightly fantastical discourse with the large population of people who irrationally cling to bullshit.
The trend is for pop-materialists to lose the ability to discern between the two. Perhaps it is related to some kind of phobia, plain intolerance or a need to crusade. It diminishes the range of possible discussion. Hope this clarifies. Take care.
Or maybe a triumph thereof? If people now care about what's true and dislike spreading interesting falsehoods, isn't that a good thing?