Talk:Flat Earth Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat Earth Society article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] section of the truth

i think we should put in a section that states the the earth has been proven to be round. the article states it as if it were a theory. i think its a proven fact by now.

I agree, but Wikipedia should be totally objective. It is never appropriate to call someone else's beliefs "completely untrue." People believe a lot of things that have been proven incorrect. (Fossils are often said to have proven creationism false.) Besides, in science, everything is a theory until it becomes a law. Laws have several requirements, but one of them is that they must be simple, and can usually be expressed by a single formula. The earth's shape cannot be expressed in this manner.
actually, there is a law for this. the thing that makes a planet round is the fact that the gravity is greater than the inherent strength of the material it is made of. we can assume that the earth has gravity 1 (the unit of gravity measurement is 1 earth gravity) and that the earth is made of varous rocks. we know the amount of rocks due to the mass required to generate 1G of gravity. therefore the size of a cylindrical disk shaped earth. any rock cannot hold a disk like structure under 1 g of gravity pulling it towards the center, so the earth collapses into a sphere.

[edit] TheFlatEarthSociety.org is Satirical

The description of the FE website should note that it's potentially satirical. The FAQ says that "some people actually believe this", but the vast majority of forum posts (even excluding the spam and flames) are just people poking fun at dogmatic belief, as shown by this poll I'm hard-pressed to find even one forum post not-parodying the FE theory. Ceran 17:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I have proof right here, was going to ask one of the members about something and he replied this:
[06/01/2007-10:29:55] qwert11691: Do you mind if I ask you a few questions? I won't be hostile or threatening, I just want views from both sides of the flat-earth discussion.
[06/01/2007-10:30:02] [ommitted]: ok good
[06/01/2007-10:30:09] [ommitted]: and, for the record
[06/01/2007-10:30:30] [ommitted]: i, along with the majority of the users who argue for a flat earth
[06/01/2007-10:30:39] [ommitted]: do not actually believe the earth is flat
Peace. 85.166.160.209 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)



       -DISPUTES-

Flat Earth Society has been commonly criticised for the lack of proof and mostly answer by "read the FAQ" and "its a conspiracy" Obviously these people are complete idiots and waste their time thinking the world is in the middle of the universe.

[edit] Fundamentalists

Eloquence - do you mean literally what you say in your edit comment, that you "I would not be surprised" if there must be some flat earther fundies around? If "Most other fundamentalists" is in fact better than "Other fundamentalists", prejudice should not decide this. Mkmcconn 22:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Both are statements of fact. The question is, which is the more accurate one? The FES widely circulated membership claims of 3,000 and more, and Johnson often mentioned inquiries from Muslim countries. Given the unlikelihood that a Muslim in Saudi Arabia or Iran would contact a small American Christian fundamentalist group, it seems quite likely that Flat Earthers can still be found in, say, rural Iran, who have never heard of the Society. I have no real data, but this is my conclusion from Johnsons' own claims, and seems more supportable to me than to simply imply that nobody who believes this is left. That doesn't mean that I'm not willing to compromise on the word "most", but I think some qualifier should be used.—Eloquence 22:32, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
How about "No other fundamentalists have published support for this belief"? This seems to leave maximal room for both, the prejudiced imagination, and those who are looking for a count of other flat earthers. Mkmcconn 22:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I don't know if that's true, but if you're confident that it is, it seems like a good compromise. Just don't complain to me when someone else proves it wrong. ;-)—Eloquence
It's a deal. Mkmcconn

Membership inquiries came from many religious countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and India.

I object to this. Are these countries any more religious than the United States, say? If I added the U.S. to the list, it would look like an attack... Evercat 04:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I concur, and have removed the term "religious". Current phrasing is:

Membership inquiries came from many countries, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and India.

I kept the bulk of the sentence, as it is interesting that a predominantly English-speaking society of a dubious nature attracts international attention. -Itai 10:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Flat Earth belief is not quite the same as Flat Earth society,more like primitive conceptions of, geography which hopefully eliminates such nonsense from modern world.I'd still assume alot of peasants and uneducated workers have such beliefs.its appeal to common sense,since all they see is flat earth around them.

[edit] The Band?

Did I miss something, or is there a reason to include "Flatearthsociety" Heavy Metal band in the links? It is not mentioned in the article.

Its a song by the band Bad Religion

[edit] Flat-earth.org

Yo - the flat-earth.org website, which claims to be that of the Flat Earth Society, is an amazing piece of satire, and obviously not the site of the serious organisation that actually advocated the flat-earth theory. What does this mean? I'm not sure.

My evidence, from the Flat Earth F.A.Q.:

13. What about gravity?
Gravity is a lie invented by the purveyors of the inherently false spherical Earth theory. The theory of gravity has never been proven. There is no gravity, only inertia. The Earth moves through space like a giant elevator. We do not fall off because we are kept down by inertia. The Earth has inertia.
There is a school of thought which states, however, that the Earth does not move through space, but rather that it rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that what we call gravity is, in fact, the turtle's animal magnetism.

Graft 21:31, Dec 15, 2004 (unsigned)

Isn't that from Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels? - Vague | Rant 03:04, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Actually Pratchett himself probably got it from Hindu mythology. The four elephants/giant turtle bit is described in several epics (e.g. the Bhagavata Purana). Graft 18:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another parady website on the flat-earth belief is [1].

Yeah, I don't really understand why the article describes the site as genuine as it's obviously satirical.

[edit] Puzzling. . .

Hmm, if the earth is a disc (at least they don't claim it's square), then what's on the other side? How thick is it, and what does it look like when you get to the edge? At a minimum, the disc would have to be about 70,000 feet thick (the total distance between the top of Mt. Everest (ca. 30,000 feet) and the bottom of the Mariana Trench (ca. 36,000 feet). Therefore the sides of the disc would be somewhere around 14 miles across, and in perpetual darkness--no, wait a minute: if the earth is flat, why is half of it dark at any given time? Perhaps the Western Hemisphere is on one side, and the disc flips back and forth every 24 hours. But if that's the case, why do some latitudes have wider oscillations in the length of the days (e.g., in Germany it stays light out until nearly 10 p.m. in the summertime, whereas in the tropics the days are pretty much 12 hours long year-round)? Oh, wait, the flat-earthers say that the whole world, all 7 continents, are on the same side of the disc. So how do we have night and day? Maybe the disc tilts along the "equator," but if that were so, the nights in the tropics would be very short year-round, and the latitudes further north and south would be in near-perpetual darkness year-round. And again, what's on the other side??? --Bamjd3d

The explanation they give is that the Sun orbits above the equator, slightly north during the July months and south during the December months, explaining the days and seasons reasonably well.
And what about international flights? I've flown from Vancouver to Manila -- I know it can be done, heh heh! Do flat-earthers claim that every commercial pilot in the world is part of the conspiracy? As in, they tell everyone they're crossing the Pacific, but in reality they're just going, say, north?
Not true. All flights which do not go over the south pole are not a problem for this brilliant theory. So, flying from Vancouver to Manila is just as easy to explain by this magnificient, ingenious and essentially coherent theory as is drawing a straight line on UN map - the most evident proof of the coherence of the flat earth POV, which should have an equal say in this NPOV-pedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.132.197 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

However, The conspiracy would have to include every pilot, navigator, sailor, scheduling manager (you couldn't hide the fact that it would take multiple times the time to ship something from Australia to South Africa as from China to England), businessman, geographer, cartographer, and geologist on the planet. Any mutli-dimensional or space warping theory that attempts to explain this discrepancy away will come to the same conclusion, that the Earth has the geometry of a globe.

Amazing section. Pity it doesn't exist in the main article (as it would detract from the topic). Piepants 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Piepants

[edit] First sorry, then a suggestion

Hello.

Sorry if I caused unwanted trouble with the "Creationism2" template. My purpose was to remove the box from the Flat Earth article -- not to delete the template itself. Sorry if the latter happened.

Now, because it seems I don't have the computer skills myself, I strongly suggest someone to remove the box if I didn't succeed in the proper way.

The reason for this is quite clear. Although Flat Earthers mostly are creationists, the opposite is not the case. As mentioned in the article itself, the view flat Earth is somewhat a ridicule. I'm not willing to speculate why the box had been placed on such a notable and important place, but nevertheless it gives the impression that creationism and even intelligent design are among jokes comparable to flat Earth.

I'm well aware that many naturalists and evolutionists personally think that way, but on my opinion no neutral supports this. Firstly, the number of supporters of creationism anf flat Earth differ with a factor of four powers of ten, or so. Secondly, and more importantly, the supposed flat Earth is something that is contrary to everyday observations that almost anyone can make.

For prehistoric events, most often there are more or less some indirect clues, often to different directions, but the direct observation is beyond human perspective. Although some models combine better with the indirect evidence, no-one has to play fool and think contrary of what is seen today.

[edit] Come on..........

People from long ago belived the earth is flat.........so what let them belive what they want to belive,I mean sure you all think their retarded but we all know that the earth is round or so they say we'd fall off.

actually, most people realized the Earth was round for a long time. The whole business about Columbus proving the Earth was round to the Europeans was a load of bull. Educated Europeans knew that for a long time (and educated non-European societies probably knew it longer) and yet we think Columbus somehow proved something. Oh, and did you know that Columbus grossly underestimated the circumfrence of the earth, so if the Americas hadn't been in the way he would have died at sea.
You'll note the OP didn't mention Columbus or any specific time period, but rather "long ago", which is almost certainly true as long as you track backwards far enough.
Oh, Columbus always finds a way to enter these discusssions, even when he isn't mentioned in the first post… which I essentially agree with, by the way. It's amazing how people will use every chance to feel superior no matter how (seemingly?) weak the opponent. I mean, if they honestly think this is so, well, what harm does it cause? Give them their peace. And yes, the original, "default" human belief was in the Earth's overall flatness. Look out your window and you will see why this belief occurs. — Lenoxus 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People should question what they are told apparently with authority

I was under the impression that there was a society called "The Flat Earth Society" whose members did not literally believe that the earth was flat, but that we should always question what we are told and never accept what we are told just because "experts" say it is true. I can, however, find no reference to this on my brief search of Google and this article. However, I think it is a very healthy attitude to take. Examples today include climate change: we are repeatedly told that the polar ice caps are melting, but how many people have seen it with their own eyes. I'm not saying I personally don't believe in the truth of global warming: I do; but I have no evidence other than what I have been told. I thought this was the point of this society. Has anyone else heard of the Flat Earth Society in these terms?

While yes, questioning authority is good sometimes, the flat earth society actually does believe that the Earth is flat. For some reason, even though they have no evidence, they stick to their beliefs. However, on the other topic you talked about, there is evedence of global warming - on Mars and Earth.

--Firehawk1717 17:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In both the cases of flat -earth and no-global-warming, there is a bit of "commonsensical" evidence. Look out your window for the former — the Earth damn well looks flat, doesn't it? And as for global warming… why it's cold in [insert cold place here], right? So how could things be getting "warmer" if cold still exists in some places? Obviously, neither model goes into quite as much depth as the science. — Lenoxus 05:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zetetic Perspective

There is a great site that can be used as a resource for developing this page (or spawning another page)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm#contents

Who is up to writing it? not I, said 130.243.74.84 15:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed on Shenton

The article says that Shenton is "a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Geographic Society". Newsweek, vol 73, Jan 13, 1969, page 8 says that he is a "retired sign painter". Sign painters aren't normally made fellows of the Royal Astronomical Society - is there a reference for that? Bubba73 (talk), 23:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree it would be good to have a citation, the claim is not as implausible as it might seem. According to the Royal Astronomical Society's web site, all members of the Society are known as Fellows. Also according to the web site, only about half of the members are professional astronomers and about a quarter are undergraduate students, amateur astronomers and the like. One way to become a member is to be nominated by an existing member. The Royal Geographic Society has similar criteria. 68.252.39.38 17:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saying the Earth is not actually flat is not heavy-handed editorializing

(From The Department of Not Believing I Actually Even Have To Say This): I've been accused of heavy-handed editorializing for adding that the belief that the Earth is flat is... "in contradiction with the universal consensus among scientists that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid." This is only the most appropriate way of stating the facts with as neutral a point of view as possible, rather than suggesting relative validity of the idea that the Earth is flat. Could there possibly be a stronger case for letting the scientific fringe hijack reality than to be overly deferential to the idea that the Earth is flat?! - Reaverdrop 21:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The article says, in the first para 'scientists universally reject it.' Your heavy handed statement is unecessary and ugly. No validity is given to it. For great justice. 21:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The issues are laid out then: is it or is it not valid, consistently with a NPOV policy that includes not suggesting equal validity for pseudoscience, [2] to say that the idea of a flat Earth is in contradiction with the universal consensus among scientists that the Earth is a slightly oblate spheroid. - Reaverdrop 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is not whether it is against policy to say it, of course it's not, the issue is that it is unnecessary, ugly, and, well, ugly. We say that everyone except 3 nuts don't believe it, there's no need to have a 'don't try this at home kids' warning on the front! For great justice. 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Although actually, now you point it out, it does say "Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such;" - so yes, we should just say that most people don't believe it. We should not say that it is false - let people come to their own conclusions. For great justice. 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say "this is false"; it says this is against "the universal consensus among scientists" - which is an objective fact. Even if whether it is an objective fact had any evidence to dispute in practice, it would be an objective fact by the definition of "scientist". As the policy passage indicates, it is always possible to go too far in one direction or the other in NPOV. Avoiding the assertion that the belief that the Earth is flat is in contradiction with the universal consensus among scientists would be to go too far in accommodating and providing relative validity to flat-Earthers, the well-deserved paragons - as a matter of purely objective fact - of contradicting the universal consensus of scientists. - Reaverdrop 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with "the universal consensus among scientists". As long as WP is not making a statement about the veracity, merely pointing out what scientists beleive. For great justice. 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Done. - Reaverdrop 22:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly I don't see any reason with just stating it flat out. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. If there were (for example) a group of people who believed that π = 3, we wouldn't say "most mathematicians believe such-and-so", we'd just say they were wrong, end of story. The fact that the Earth is spheroidal is as well-established a fact as that π = 3.14159...

Damn. I was going to add a parodiacal section to the talk page like this, bitching that the viewpoints of the Flat-Earthers were not neutrally represented in this article, when I see that somebody's gone and done it for real. God, I love Wikipedia. Toptomcat 03:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Catholic Apostolic Church

There is more listed in this article about the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church than in its actual article (and most of it appears to be POV poetic license). Whatever you consider it, this is not an article about that church, and just because they followed the Flat Earth doctrine does not mean they should get their own paragraph. --67.172.10.82 06:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasoning behind their beliefs

Somebody needs to add the parts about why the believe what they do rather than just criticizing its authenticity, I mean I don't believe it, but its stupid to and unbiased to explain that its "stupid" without giving an example of what is "stupid" about it.

I don't think so. I visited what I am pretty sure is the real site and read a Flat-Earth newsletter. There are posts explaining or attempting to explain the Flat-Earth Theory, but I can't even tell if they are legit, or if the society is now a joke. People give metaphors about the Earth based on water balloons. They believe that anyone who argues with them is an unintelligible moron who can't spell. And they constantly bicker about whether so and so is really a round-Earther. None gives a coherent argument on anything. If there is even one flat-earther who truely believes in the theory, let him or her come here and contribute. I will not do their work for them. I'm too afraid I would get it wrong. Oh and by the way, they think we have a non-neutral POV. THat they all agree on.68.239.141.91 03:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you are afraid would get it wrong because every Flat-earther believes something different.

[edit] Really?

I mean...Come on!KeNNy 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You will burn in hell for your blasphemies!!! Muhahahaha!!

[edit] Role Players

Aren't a good amount of people who believe this stuff just role playing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.245.168 (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Disputes

Flat Earth Society has been commonly criticised for the lack of proof and mostly answer by "read the FAQ" and "its a conspiracy" Obviously these people are complete idiots and waste their time thinking the world is in the middle of the universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.234.181 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

And now for our educational moment: Satire (lat. medley, dish of colourful fruits) is a technique used in drama, fiction, journalism, and occasionally in poetry, the graphic arts, the performing arts and other media. Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner. Satire usually has a very definite target which may be a person or group of people, an idea or attitude, an institution or a social practice. In any case the target is held up to a ridicule that is often quite merciless, and sometimes very angry; ideally in the hope of shaming it into reform. A very common, almost defining feature of satire is a strong vein of irony or sarcasm, in fact satirical writing or drama very often professes to approve values that are the diametric opposite of what the writer actually wishes to promote. Parody, burlesque, exaggeration and double entendre are all devices frequently used in satirical speech and writing – but it is strictly a misuse of the word to describe as "satire" works without an ironic (or sarcastic) undercurrent of mock-approval, and an element at least of anger. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 05:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explanations

The article should explain how flat earthers theorize:

  • how weather and the seasons work
  • why no one has seen this great "ice wall" that they claim exists
  • why photos from space aren't accurate
  • how/why scientific calculations are wrong (flight paths, orbit trajectories, etc.)

I'd love to hear what they have to say. /Timneu22 03:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

They DON"T have an explaination for those things. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.224.154.12 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, they do for a lot of so called "flaws". Although some do then base things on more unsupported claims (conspiracy, photoshop, mysterious particles that refract the light from sun disc). They should, however, be mentioned (as long as they are sourced...). --RabidZombie 15:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really, whole page needs to be rewritten

Right now, it shifts around the history of flat Earth-based notions in general to several apparently different societies, without making any solid, referenced claims or explanations about which groups are truly identical, and where one turned into another. — Lenoxus 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. Some parts could be salvaged, as long as they are sourced, but a lot of it is a mess. I'm, however, not up for the job. --RabidZombie 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Me neither, that's why I put up the tag (just now; I hadn't thought of it before). Hopefully someone will come along with the power... maybe I should add an expert input template as well, just for the heck of it? -- Lenoxus 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/a/Talk%7EFlat_Earth_Society_71e3.html"