YouGov said that lots of millennials think the world is flat. But when Scientific American asked for the poll data, it didn't make sense – and YouGov didn't want to talk about it.
There is roughly a 0% chance that any of the pro-flat Earth or unsure answers in that YouGov survey weren't people just messing around. Pretending to believe the Earth is flat has been a common troll tactic online for years now.
My guess is definitely Why, then, are younger people more likely to be uncertain or ambivalent? Perhaps they are more likely to offer frivolous or ironic responses, as Earther’s Brian Kahn suggests...
I think the concept of honestly answering pollsters was in decline before the Millenials came around. The idea that a statistically singifcant fraction reacted along the lines of, “why are you asking me such a stupid question, yeah sure, I have doubts, hehehehe...” seems plausible.
- is global warming increasing over the last 100 years, or
- is genetic therapy a fact, or
- is the earth round,
I would be quite happy to state that it is actually rhomboid, since you are asking
In other words the question is so silly that people will answer silly, just for the fun of having somoene come out with a scientific analysis of the nonsensical answers.
The survey question asked was not whether people currently believe the earth is flat. They asked, "Have you always believed it is round?" Those are not the same question, and people could be answering based on childhood/pre-school beliefs. Unless they dig deeper, it is hard to say why people gave a negative answer.
I agree, the question was just badly worded. I would answer "other" to "I have always believed the world is round." Like everyone I began in ignorance and only later was educated enough to "believe the world is round." The world looks flat at first glance. It is a surprise that the world is a sphere. It's a great lesson for all of us to review first impressions in light of other evidence.
>> He described the modern flat-Earth community as a confluence of three strains of thought. “There’s the conspiratorial,” he said. “It’s like, ‘That’s kind of weird with the moon landing. Maybe I’ll look into it. What else could they be lying about?’ ” The second is “the scientific-minded,” people who “just want to go out and do the experiments.” The third, Davidson said, “is the spiritual—people that want to say, ‘Wait a minute, what would happen if I took the Bible literally?’ ” In style and substance, the flat-Earth movement is a close cousin of creationism.
Here are a couple of images I was given by an Aerospace Engineer recently. I don't know if he was trolling me or not, so I provide them without further comment.
If you zoom in close enough, the horizon looks flat. (Alternatively, the plane is not high enough for the earth to look round with that focal length)
The second one:
All that matters is that Mercury isn't in the line between the Sun and the Earth. Take a look here [0] to see that there are times when Mercury's orbit would be visible from Earth.
Even then, I'm not sure why the Earth being flat would have anything to do with Mercury's visibility, since it would still be visible even if the Earth were flat.
> Even then, I'm not sure why the Earth being flat would have anything to do with Mercury's visibility, since it would still be visible even if the Earth were flat.
They're trying to imply that a spherical Earth would prevent a visible Mercury at night. It's still nonsense.
It's proposing the idea that you can't see anything in a mirror that is facing around the corner from you. Venus is reflecting the Sun's light to you on the night-side of Earth, just like a mirror reflects an image to you even though you can't physically see around a corner.
Think of it as Venus orbiting inside Earth's orbit, but not directly between the Earth and the Sun at the time you can see Venus.
Maybe it’s worth mentioning that this flat embedding is a consequence of the Nash embedding theorem. The same Nash as in the Nash equilibrium, or in A Beautiful Mind.
Seems to me they should interview a bunch of the people who gave each answer and ask they why they believe as they do. Without that we are just speculating. In fact, we might find out that for many the answer they gave to the survey didn't even mean what it seems to.
26 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 74.6 ms ] threadI think the concept of honestly answering pollsters was in decline before the Millenials came around. The idea that a statistically singifcant fraction reacted along the lines of, “why are you asking me such a stupid question, yeah sure, I have doubts, hehehehe...” seems plausible.
People just like to take the piss.
- is shroedinger equation valid, or
- is global warming increasing over the last 100 years, or
- is genetic therapy a fact, or
- is the earth round,
I would be quite happy to state that it is actually rhomboid, since you are asking
In other words the question is so silly that people will answer silly, just for the fun of having somoene come out with a scientific analysis of the nonsensical answers.
>> He described the modern flat-Earth community as a confluence of three strains of thought. “There’s the conspiratorial,” he said. “It’s like, ‘That’s kind of weird with the moon landing. Maybe I’ll look into it. What else could they be lying about?’ ” The second is “the scientific-minded,” people who “just want to go out and do the experiments.” The third, Davidson said, “is the spiritual—people that want to say, ‘Wait a minute, what would happen if I took the Bible literally?’ ” In style and substance, the flat-Earth movement is a close cousin of creationism.
https://imgur.com/a/GoEzEdl
https://imgur.com/a/zZS3nti
If you zoom in close enough, the horizon looks flat. (Alternatively, the plane is not high enough for the earth to look round with that focal length)
The second one:
All that matters is that Mercury isn't in the line between the Sun and the Earth. Take a look here [0] to see that there are times when Mercury's orbit would be visible from Earth.
Even then, I'm not sure why the Earth being flat would have anything to do with Mercury's visibility, since it would still be visible even if the Earth were flat.
[0] http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu/EMAT6680Fa09/Yoon/EMAT%206690/Fir...
They're trying to imply that a spherical Earth would prevent a visible Mercury at night. It's still nonsense.
It's proposing the idea that you can't see anything in a mirror that is facing around the corner from you. Venus is reflecting the Sun's light to you on the night-side of Earth, just like a mirror reflects an image to you even though you can't physically see around a corner.
Think of it as Venus orbiting inside Earth's orbit, but not directly between the Earth and the Sun at the time you can see Venus.
This explains it better than I can: https://www.quora.com/How-is-Venus-visible-in-the-night-sky-...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5502092/
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_embedding_theorem