To: rocksolid.shared.offtopic
Not really about flat earth debate, more about trusting sources of
information.

Interesting read:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/i-watched-an-entire-flat-earth-convention-for-my-research-heres-what-i-learned/

I watched an entire Flat Earth Convention for my research--here's what I
learned

Shifts in who has power to spread information have led to a resurgence in
fringe ideas.

Columnist: Harry T Dyer

Speakers recently flew in from around (or perhaps, across?) the Earth for
a three-day event held in Birmingham: the UK's first ever public Flat
Earth Convention. It was well attended, and it wasn't just three days of
speeches and YouTube clips (though, granted, there was a lot of this).
There was also a lot of team-building, networking, debating,
workshops--and scientific experiments.

Yes, flat-Earthers do seem to place a lot of emphasis and priority on
scientific methods and, in particular, on observable facts. The weekend in
no small part revolved around discussing and debating science, with lots
of time spent running, planning, and reporting on the latest set of
flat-Earth experiments and models. Indeed, as one presenter noted early
on, flat-Earthers try to "look for multiple, verifiable evidence" and
advised attendees to "always do your own research and accept you might be
wrong."

While flat-Earthers seem to trust and support scientific methods, what
they don't trust is scientists, and the established relationships between
"power" and "knowledge." This relationship between power and knowledge has
long been theorized by sociologists. By exploring this relationship, we
can begin to understand why there is a swelling resurgence of
flat-Earthers.

Power and knowledge

Let me begin by stating quickly that I'm not really interested in
discussing if the Earth if flat or not (for the record, I'm happily a
"globe-Earther")--and I'm not seeking to mock or denigrate this community.
What's important here is not necessarily whether anyone believes the Earth
is flat or not, but instead what the flat-Earthers' resurgence and public
conventions tell us about science and knowledge in the 21st century.

Throughout the weekend, multiple competing models of Earth shapes were
suggested, including "classic" flat Earth, domes, ice walls, diamonds,
puddles with multiple worlds inside, and even the Earth as the inside of a
giant cosmic egg. However, the discussion often did not revolve around the
models on offer, but on broader issues of attitudes towards existing
structures of knowledge, and the institutions that supported and presented
these structures.

Flat-Earthers are not the first group to be skeptical of existing power
structures and their tight grasps on knowledge. This viewpoint is somewhat
typified by the work of Michel Foucault, a famous and heavily influential
20th century philosopher who made a career of studying those on the
fringes of society to understand what they could tell us about everyday
life.

He is well known, among many other things, for looking at the close
relationship between power and knowledge. He suggested that knowledge is
created and used in a way that reinforces the claims to legitimacy of
those in power. At the same time, those in power control what is
considered to be correct and incorrect knowledge. According to Foucault,
there is therefore an intimate and interlinked relationship between power
and knowledge.

At the time Foucault was writing on the topic, the control of power and
knowledge had moved away from religious institutions, who previously held
a very singular hold over knowledge and morality, and was instead
beginning to move towards a network of scientific institutions, media
monopolies, legal courts, and bureaucratized governments. Foucault argued
that these institutions work to maintain their claims to legitimacy by
controlling knowledge.

Ahead of the curve?

In the 21st century, we are witnessing another important shift in both
power and knowledge due to factors that include the increased public
platforms afforded by social media. Knowledge is no longer centrally
controlled and--as has been pointed out in the wake of Brexit--the age of
the expert may be passing. Now, everybody has the power to create and
share content. When Michael Gove, a leading proponent of Brexit,
proclaimed: "I think the people of this country have had enough of
experts," it would seem that he, in many ways, meant it.

It is also clear that we're seeing increased polarization in society, as
we continue to drift away from agreed singular narratives and move into
camps around shared interests. Recent Pew research suggests, for example,
that 80 percent of voters who backed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US
presidential election--and 81 percent of Trump voters--believe the two
sides are unable to agree on basic facts.

Despite early claims that a worldwide shared resource of knowledge such as
the internet would create peace, harmony, and a common interpretation of
reality (this idea comes from as far back as HG Well's "world brain"
essays in 1936), it appears that quite the opposite has happened. With the
increased voice afforded by social media, knowledge has been increasingly
decentralized, and competing narratives have emerged.

This was something of a reoccurring theme throughout the weekend, and was
especially apparent when four flat-Earthers debated three physics PhD
students. A particular point of contention occurred when one of the
physicists pleaded with the audience to avoid trusting YouTube and
bloggers. The audience and the panel of flat-Earthers took exception to
this, noting that "now we've got the Internet and mass communication ...
we're not reliant on what the mainstream are telling us in newspapers, we
can decide for ourselves." It was readily apparent that the flat-Earthers
were keen to separate knowledge from scientific institutions.

Flat-Earthers and populism

At the same time as scientific claims to knowledge and power are being
undermined, some power structures are decoupling themselves from
scientific knowledge, moving towards a kind of populist politics that are
increasingly skeptical of knowledge. This has, in recent years, manifested
itself in extreme ways--through such things as public politicians showing
support for Pizzagate or Trump's suggestions that Ted Cruz's father shot
JFK.

But this can also be seen in more subtle and insidious form in the way in
which Brexit, for example, was campaigned for in terms of gut feelings and
emotions rather than expert statistics and predictions. Science is
increasingly facing problems with its ability to communicate ideas
publicly, a problem that politicians, and flat-Earthers, are able to
circumvent with moves towards populism.

Again, this theme occurred throughout the weekend. Flat-Earthers were
encouraged to trust "poetry, freedom, passion, vividness, creativity, and
yearning" over the more clinical regurgitation of established theories and
facts. Attendees were told that "hope changes everything," and warned
against blindly trusting what they were told. This is a narrative echoed
by some of the celebrities who have used their power to back flat-Earth
beliefs, such as the musician B.O.B, who tweeted: "Don't believe what I
say, research what I say."

In many ways, a public meeting of flat-Earthers is a product and sign of
our time; a reflection of our increasing distrust in scientific
institutions, and the moves by power-holding institutions towards populism
and emotions. In much the same way that Foucault reflected on what social
outcasts could reveal about our social systems, there is a lot
flat-Earthers can reveal to us about the current changing relationship
between power and knowledge. And judging by the success of this UK
event--and the large conventions planned in Canada and America this
year--it seems the flat-Earth is going to be around for a while yet.
--- Synchronet 3.17a-Linux NewsLink 1.108
Posted on RetroBBS