Talk:Flat Earth Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat Earth Society article.
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.
Ah, no, there is no requirement for such a thing. I suggest you look up the scientific defintions of theory and fact. Jachra (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
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.
It is ok to say that a FACT is untrue. A BELIEF cannot be untrue. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to say something like "Although the facts regarding a flat vs. round Earth have unquestionably proven that the Earth is spherical, the belief that the Earth is flat still persists with some groups such as this one." Just a suggestion. (Petruchi41 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
No, laws are not super-theories. Laws are things, often formulas, that simply describe behavior. Take one of Newton's laws, "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force". This describes the behavior of objects in non-extreme environments. It gives no reason to be true, but so far appears to be true. The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives a reason for it to be true, rather than simply explaining how things behave. Natural selection explains how one cell managed to turn into a human, not just that it does. Theories try to explain 'why' something happens, while a law simply uses inductive reasoning to predict what will happen. 68.228.80.106 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
When will people understand that "theory" doesn't mean something is unproven. It means, precisely, that something has been proven. A "theory" is not a "hypothesis". I thought after all the nonsense about the "Theory of Evolution is just a theory" debate everyone should be clear by now that "Theory" doesn't mean something has yet to be proven but that there is enough evidence to assume it's the truth. --194.202.236.116 11:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually in science nothing can be proven. It's all based on empirical evidence, and once there's enough it is accepted as truth, but scientists are welcome to disprove it. In fact if someone were to disprove a commonly accepted theory they would win a Nobel Prize. I believe you are confusing scientific "theories" with mathematical "theorems", which, in the scope of a certain collection of axioms, is absolutely true, proven so, and can only be disproved in the collapse of space-time (i.e. never).68.228.80.106 00:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
A more precise defintion was offered by Steven Jay Gould: "In Science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'" So pretty much, yeah. Jachra (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] relativism gone wrong

The concept that wikipedia's objectiveness should preclude calling something false just because someone believes it to be true is quite absurd. According to you we should say that some people deny the holocaust and not say that the deniers are liars. We should not claim that HIV causes aids because some people believe it doesn't. By the way, on that point, as a direct propagation of that false belief, hundreds of thousands of people have died in Africa. Some people believe that babies come from stalks who deliver them to the mother, not from the bonding of an egg and a sperm and the eventual development of a fetus giving rise to the exiting of the baby through the Vagina. So should we validate the stalk theory. Some people believe that the moon is made of cheese. So should we give credence to this belief and say some people say it is made out of rock and some out of cheese. I could literally give hundreds of examples.
The point of an encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge. To know something implies that it is possible to figure out whether something is true or false. (If not then human knowledge is meaningless.) Now I am not arguing that there are sometimes gray areas. Of course there are. There are various economic theories that explain the great depression. There is a lot of debate as to whether driving while talking on a cellphone is any more dangerous than talking to a passenger. There are some things that are not gray areas. We know how rainbows form and we also know that there is not a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. Indeed there is very little that every person amougnst 6.5 billion people actually agree on. So if we waited for 100% agreement we would know virtually nothing.
I make one other point. The person above states:
It is never appropriate to call someone else's beliefs "completely untrue."
Why not? What if their beliefs are completely untrue? Should we deny reality? And what does being objective have to do with it. Please do not conflate objectivity with being able to decide that some things simply false. The concept that we have to respect someone else's beliefs is itself something of a dogma without logical explanation. Indeed the most logical starting point is to say that one should examine what others say and if they are proven wrong, one should say so. Thus it is entirely appropriate to say that the belief that the world is flat is quite simply false. Custodiet ipsos custodes 15:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Religion is one thing, as there is no way to disprove something supernatural, but to argue about something as concrete as the shape of the earth is just absurd. 68.228.80.106 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for this posting. There are far too many relativists trying to foist unproven assumptions on WP articles due to precisely this relativistic view of the world, in which opinion and fact are indivisible. What they would like us to forget is one very simple, basic statement:
When two statements mutually exclude each other, it is impossible that both are true.
--77.56.237.232 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Im with you, This Flat Earth has alredy been solve centuries ago so this topic is just a bucn of lies by some people that are just seeking attention.
--24.138.232.27 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proof that earth is round

the proof that earth is roud is that whe can travel for years and "fall off" the earth.

Huh? Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? You're not making sense. Midtempo-abg (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess you mean the proof that the Earth is round is that you can travel and NOT fall off?207.58.207.138 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if one were to travel in a line tangential to the Earth, one would fall from it regardless of the shape. Dash275 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[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)
Many do not, but I know for a fact that some do believe in a flat earth. Some are there for argueing. Others believe in a flat earth. --WakingJohn 07:24, 4 November 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. --anonymous xx:xx, X X XXXX (UTC)


I agree with you, http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.80, in here theres enough proof this site is satirical and therefore this wikipedia entry should be deleted. 136.145.175.46 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[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] 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.

That FAQ is wrong, unless the "giant elevator" is under constant acceleration (eg, not constant speed). Inertia alone would actually let you fly forever higher and higher with a simple jump on a constant velocity "elevator" :) That, and an "elevator" wouldn't elevate anything if there wasn't gravity. A wrong FAQ (even in their version of the earth's shape) could mean their web site (currently) is just satirical. We can't (and shouldn't) decide whether their beliefs are true or not and just judging if the website is satirical or not seems difficult (just look at this discussion page :). I'm with the ones who say to write an article about the society and their beliefs but clearly marking them as such, to be sure nobody thinks the article speaks about any factual, scientific evidence (about a round o flat earth, it doesn't matter). Luca Lesinigo (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[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)
Dunno, looks quite bumpy from out of my window. --129.234.4.76 08:35, 8 November 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)

Questioning authority is one of the best things you can do. Frankly, though, you need to take serious leaps of faith to see conspiracies of the scale you're imagining. Jachra (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (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] 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).

Well, personally I roleplay the views of the FES within Urban Dead. I believe that some guys roleplay it in real life, but few do believe that the Earth actually is flat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.86.102 (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2008 (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)

[edit] Page needs complete rewrite.

I agree that the whole page needs virtually a complete re-write. Whoever wrote this seems not to quite understand what the modern movement is about.

I think to best sum up the movement, the page needs to delve into the perspective that flat-earth society members don't believe in global warming, because Al Gore says so, nor do we believe in evolution because Charles Darwin says so.

The entire point of flat earth is that I can perform scientific experiments designed to prove conclusively to you that the earth is flat. You (colloquially speaking of course) cannot conclusively prove to me (or anyone) that the earth is indeed round, without taking the word of someone who claims to have circumnavigated the globe or viewed the earth from space. The numbers of people who have done this is few. And yet, you would be hard pressed to find ANYONE who does not totally accept the idea of a round earth whole cloth. The point is not whether or not the earth is flat. The point is how you know it is/is not.

Similarly, you (again speaking colloquially) cannot prove the correctness of evolution, a theory which you(*) propound so adamantly that you insist upon it being taught in school to every child and embrace as scientific fact in all dimensions. The same holds true for global warming. Outside of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, scarcely a legitimate scientist references global warming without prefacing their comments with something akin to, "assuming the theory holds true . . ." or "the evidence tends to suggest . . ." And yet, politicians and the ignorant masses have embraced it as the most important body of science of the modern era. Suffice it to say that those who do, are rarely actual scientists nor do any of them understanding what the scientific method is.

I think you will find that flat earth subscribers love it when politicians and talk show hosts lambaste the movement. It is evidence of their own lack of understanding and proof of the mindlessness of so many of the self appointed leaders of society. In most cases, you will find that the faithful to the society are vastly more intelligent than average, except for the occasional kook who just likes the idea of a flat earth without really understanding why it is indeed flat. (Oh yes, the earth is indeed flat!)

Herein lies the nature of the flat-earth movement. It is in all material regards, an anti-lemming association. The fact that so many fail to realize or understand this is evidence of its importance.

Some of the historical material in this article might be good. I don’t profess to be an authority on the origins and history. But this article totally fails to comprehend the relevance of the current movement.

Grafals 21:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)grafals

This is asinine. Anyone can demonstrate to their satisfaction that the earth is round. Simple experiments to do so were outlined over two thousand years ago by Eratosthenes. Any idiot can perform them. Similarly, any idiot can be taught to do simple BLAST searches and construct phylogenetic trees of life. It's not difficult. People can learn the relevant mathematical details in a few days. These things are not some sort of esoteric knowledge that only an unobtainable few possess. They're written down in textbooks, papers, and yes, the articles in Wikipedia. That's how science works. Graft 21:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
And, let me add that in this age of jet travel, the number of people who have themselves circumnavigated the globe is not small. Graft 21:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
My wife is not an idiot, and she could not perform the experiments to which you refer. Perhaps you have overstated the case for the easy non-specialist proof of roundness. Things are different in other fields -- biology, for example. Any idiot knows that stomach ulcers are caused by acid. And countless peer-reviewed articles attest to the soundness of contemporary biology. All we have to do is read them. Lemming science, indeed. If it's published, it's true. Lou Sander 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Pointing to outliers as representative is just a bit of a logical fallacy, eh? And let's point out that Dr. Hwang was discovered thanks to his peers, discredited, and his work recanted. Anyway. I fail to see how your wife couldn't perform Eratosthenes' calculation - it involves looking in a hole in the ground and doing some trigonometry. I am certain that, if your wife is not an idiot, she can be taught the relevant math in an afternoon. For more abstruse theories of science, you're correct, but the contention that all everyday observances are matters of faith is simply false. The Flat Earth claim is obviously the absurdist extension, but I don't think science is as inaccessible as you or others are making it out to be. Graft 19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm at a complete loss.. I always thought that the Flat Earth Society was completely tongue in cheek but there really are people out there who aren't role playing (or they're doing a terrific job of it). The only way I can think of that would prove to them that they're wrong would be to put each one of them on a rocket (because apparently nobody's word is good enough to convince them otherwise) shoot them into orbit and tell them to turn around and look out the window at the pretty blue marble called Earth. Pretty cost prohibitive I must admit. But, wouldn't all they would have to do to prove ALL of us wrong is tell us how to get to the edge of this supposed disk and look over and see Atlas' arm muscles bulging from the strain of holding us all aloft? It is to laugh.. CanadianMist 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The people above who are writing in support of a flat earth, or disputing evolution or global warming are clear evidence of people who do not know anything. I challenge anyone to give me evidence that the earth is flat, or that evolution is false, or that the earth is not warmer than it was 100 years ago, on average. There are a huge number of kooks that run around squawking like chickens with their heads cut off, but that does not mean they have half a clue. It is not a matter of finding evidence that the earth is round (or actually roughly an oblate spheroid), but in cataloguing as many methods for demonstrating this as possible. For example: 1. Shadow of the earth on the moon is round during a lunar eclipse (due to Aristotle, but might have been known before) 2. Masts of ships coming over the horizon are revealed from the uppermost tip downward, which would be expected on a roughly spherical earth. 3. Flying high in an airplane you can percieve the curvature 4. Spacecraft and satellites orbit the roughly spherical earth 5. circumnavigation 6. photographs of the earth from space show a roughly spherical orb 7. Length of shadows at noon during the summer solistice at different locations are consistent with the earth being a sphere; Erastothene's computation of the earth's circumference can be made using this fact. 8. Radio wave propagation observations are consistent with being on a spherical earth. 9. The fictitious coriolis and centrifugal forces are consistent with being on a rotating roughly spherical earth. For example, Focault pendulum observations are consistent with being on a rotating spherical earth. These are used to forecast hurricanes and to aim missiles and other projectiles successfully. 10. The figure of the earth is consistent with a rotating fluid mass at minimum energy, which is exactly what is expected. 11. Sonar propagation observations are consistent with a roughly spherical earth. 12. If the earth were flat, it would be the only such planet in the solar system to exhibit this peculiar shape. 13. Observations of seismic wave propagation are consistent with a roughly spherical earth. 14. The free oscillations of the earth are those of a roughly spherical body, with the modes split by rotation. Clearly, I could go on and on. I challenge you to come up with as many of your own reasons why the earth is round as you can.

The shape of the earth is so well understood and is so deeply incorporated into so many sciences and technologies that to discard it would constitute a revolution of incredible proportions. The same is true of evolution and of global warming. Anyone who claims the evidence for these is weak is either deluded, or stupid, or naive, or playing some sort of ignorant joke.--Filll 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The "flat earth defender" says: The point is not whether or not the earth is flat. The point is how you know it is/is not. That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Others say that evolution and global warming are "so deeply incorporated into so many sciences and technologies that to discard [them] would constitute a revolution of incredible proportions," directly comparing those theories with the pretty-easily-proven-even-to-nonspecialists "earth is round" theory. Sounds pretty incredible to me.
Where do I find the examples that prove man's descent as surely as the examples that prove the earth's roundness? Where do I find the numerous technologies that support the global warming advocates as well as the sextant, chronometer and GPS support the round earth people?
To quote the "flat earth defender," the point is not whether man descended from apes/fish/rutabagas, but how we know he did.
To paraphrase the "round earth guy," two and two are indisputably four, so pi is indisputably three. Lou Sander 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statement demonstrates how little you know. Nothing more. Learn something before you make such outrageous statements.--Filll 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep your heads on

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.

It is if one holds that the truthfulness of the belief effects how one writes about it.Custodiet ipsos custodes 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the earth is flat, but if someone does, their beliefs should be respected. Its actually easier to convince someone that the Earth is flat than that God exists. But that's beside the point. sigh.. 210.213.229.180 05:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly should their beliefs be respected? I respect the right to their belief, but I certainly do not respect the belief itself. Besides, for this article to mature, it would be good to have some of the most basic questions answered - like why I can see the curvature of the earth at 40,000 feet.--207.81.147.69 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the person above. I am not sure what it means to respect their beliefs. I deeply respect the First Amendment and respect their right to propagate their belief. I also respect their freedom of thought. However I do not respect the actual belief itself. It is completely mad and silly. Indeed if respecting people's beliefs means not saying saying they are false, that itself contradicts freedom of expression. One other point. What if the belief really is wrong. Why is it not appropriate to point it out?Custodiet ipsos custodes 22:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this is facetious, but I'd respect it about as much as I'd respect someone telling me purple dinosaurs would come eat us all. Luna Lovegood, I've found a friend for you! Jachra (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this a joke?

Does anybody seriously believe that the Earth is flat? I just don't see how it could happen in today's age of reason. I'm still getting over my first instinct that some vandal made this page as a joke. Is everyone absolutely positive that this society exists? Supernerd 10 23:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Google it.--THobern 15:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


It is not a joke. The information on this page conforms to the research I performed many years ago on the subject matter. I even became a paying member and received their newsletter as well as correspondence from the President of the Society. They are somewhat hostile to questions and feel beseiged [isn't that a surprise?]. I've lost contact with them over the years. Schadewald would be an excellent editor for this article. Someone, please grab him. He beat me to the punch with his 1980 article and was actively persuing a book deal with this subject matter.

Some people believe in religion too - which is just as absurd as the notion of a flat earth. Actually, most people believe in a deity of some sort - so why not in a flat earth. Once you start thinking about either idea it seems to be totally out of the question that either one is a valid theory, but nevertheless people continue to believe in (a) God. Actually, a flat earth makes as much sense as the idea that there is a god.--Soylentyellow 16:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
90+ percent of well-educated, non-crazy individuals will tell you that they firmly believe the Earth is not flat. With the existence of a deity (or more than one), there is no such near-consensus; a large proportion of that same group is religious in some way. I must admit to being offended by your suggestion that all religion is irrational and obviously fictitious. Besides, you can't prove that God doesn't exist, but you can prove that the Earth is spheroid, so there really is no comparison between the two issues. --71.39.6.137 11:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Making the claim that the Earth is flat, the more scientific of the two claims.--THobern 15:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There isn't any truly solid evidence that either proves or disproves the theory of a God, however, there is solid, observational and experimental evidence that the earth is, indeed a geoid. (Also, where do these people think the South Pole is?) Alx xlA

[edit] Denialism

Yes, I think associating the Flat Earth Society with "denialism" is potentially libelous and must be sourced. Denialism evokes the criminals and racists of Holocaust denial. And even if that connotation doesn't bother you, then most of the time denialism denotes an intentional effort to subvert truth (e.g. Big Tobacco covering up the truth about cigarette smoking). I do not believe Flat Earth believers should be considered denialist, and to suggest they are without an offer of support is potentially libelous. Dragons flight 00:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

And what about the most common usage of the word "denialism", the AIDS denialists? That is used in newspapers and magazines constantly. I know you are not a lawyer and so have no clue what constitutes defamation, especially under international law, on the internet. There is an immense literature about the earth being roughly an oblate spheroid (modulo lateral heterogeneities). And was even at the time of the founding of this Society, since at least the time of Aristotle and probably before as well, the non-flatness of the earth was well known and there was copious evidence against this hypothesis. "Without an offer of support"? What the heck does that mean? --Filll 00:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

E.g. a source saying they are denialist. Crackpots yes, denialist no, that's my opinion. Being denialist is about more than simply beleiving things most people believe are wrong. Dragons flight 00:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite right, it's about clinging to a preconceived notion, despite its being falsified by a mass of good evidence... just like flat earthers, creationists, HIV deniers, 9/11 truthers, and holocaust deniers. 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConfuciusOrnis (talk • contribs)
Our own article on denialism (which I'm not impressed by) says denialism requires the people "...seek to influence policy processes [based on their views]..." and that "denialism is a form of propaganda". That fits big tobacco and AIDS denialism, but I don't believe it fits the majority of crackpottery, including this here. Dragons flight 01:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "denialist" is a recent word, as you well know. There might not be a source that uses that term to discuss an organization that has been defunct, essentially, for decades.

However, here is a definition of denialist with two prominent newspapers using it:[3] There is even a French translation! I am absolutely positive that very soon mainline dictionaries and even other encyclopediae will include this term.

I think that crackpot is not a very encyclopedic term. What a denialist is, is someone who just discards the evidence or explains away the evidence or ignores the evidence that is overwhelmingly accepted by experts in a field. That is my understanding of the term.--Filll 01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Even that (admittedly different) definition in your link doesn't fit since it refers to a "controversial political debate". Flat Earth seems neither controversial (in the sense that there was a meaningful dispute) nor political. This is the fundemental problem with this category. It means different things depending on who you ask and we don't agree on when it applies. Dragons flight 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Not that it is definitive, but a google search of "denialism" yields almost 500,000 hits, while a google search of "denialist" yields over 100,000 hits. So someone out there is using the term, arent they?--Filll 01:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that it is being used, but I do dispute that there is clear agreement on what it means or which cases it should apply to. Dragons flight 01:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think it is much different than the older word "denier" which is in lots of dictionaries. Do you dispute this?--Filll 01:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. I consider "denialism" to be a strong perjorative for the act of arguing on behalf of beliefs they know to be untrue for the sake of personal gain. Dragons flight 01:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You are clearly living in a fantasy world. What personal gain do AIDS denialists get or seek? (at least most of them). What about Holocaust denialists/deniers? You do not think Holocaust denier is pejorative but Holocaust denialist is? Sure try to make the case. I do not think you will get very far. And no, the AIDS denialists and Holocaust denialists do not know it is untrue. Wow you have a completely distorted view of reality. But thanks for enlightening me. Now I know how much credence to put in ANY of your opinions or edits. Thank you.--Filll 01:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a distinction between a denier and a denialist. I don't think all Holocaust deniers or AIDS deniers are denialist, which I consider to be a stronger statement. Though some undoubtedly do benefit personally in terms of personal attention or advancing their ideology (e.g. racism). In those cases most benefit is not financial (unlike for example Big Tobacco's denialism).
Also, last warning, no personal attacks. Dragons flight 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Huh? what personal attack? Look if I offended you, I am sorry. Your claims seem to be completely irrational and I cannot believe you are seriously making them, frankly.--Filll 02:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"completely distorted view of reality", "how much credence to put in ANY of your opinions or edits". Comment on contributions, not contributors, etc. Dragons flight 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh grow a backbone. Your arguments have descended to the level of "breathtaking inanity" ( to borrow a turn of phrase from judge Jones ). On the one hand you complain that denialism is so poorly defined as to be worthless, then you turn around and ( based on absolutely nothing at all ) decide that denier and denialist are somehow clearly different terms? I'm with filll, your opinions look like they weigh about as much as a small handful of sub-atomic particles at this point. ornis (t) 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
For example, Rick Stoff, "'Denialism' and muddying the waters" St. Louis Journalism Review emphasized "denialism" as creating a knowingly false perception for political gain. That's the reference at the top of denialism currently, where completely independent editors have emphasized denialism as being directed at influencing public policy. I percieve a difference between denying something and denialism, is it so hard to believe that different terms ought to have somewhat different meanings? As had been said previously, we have no dictionary definition of the term, so we are down to perceptions of how it is used. I'll freely admit that different people use the term differently, but my conclusion about the dominant meaning and yours may be different.
Which brings me back to the key (and in many senses only important) point, what reference do you have associating denialism to the Flat Earth Society? Dragons flight 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree vehemently. First denialism was only about those who had something personal to gain. Now it is only about people trying to engage in political lobbying. Wow...very effective argument...NOT. And the evidence from assorted publications is at odds with your interpretations. Any gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously refuted by the laws of logic. And I do so. With extreme prejudice. Since I have some evidence on my side (see below). The flat earth society does not deny facts, in your opinion? Or does not explain them away in a contrived and nonparsimonious fashion? The way that Holocaust deniers and AIDS denialists do? Wow that is some statement for someone who supposedly has your background. And NO that is not a personal attack. But that is quite a position to take. Let's go to a debate with our positions. Or into depositions. And see how it goes. --Filll 02:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with the definition used in denialism, but that's just one example that there are a variety of different, mutually inconsistent definitions in play. If you want to say FES is denialist, then provide evidence of some source that agrees. Outside that I think we are going to agree that trying to apply our own definitions will get us no where. But no, I don't agree that just because they deny facts that they are denialist. Dragons flight 02:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you maintain a whole lot of stuff:

  • denialists and deniers are totally different things
  • that Big Tobacco Denialism is a well known thing when it doesnt get a single google hit
  • that denialists are always in it for personal gain
  • that denialists always know they are lying
  • that denialists are always in it to influence politicians.

Well, try to convince some others of your position. I doubt you will, but go ahead and try. I stand by what I said earlier. Friendly advice: consider another profession.--Filll 03:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A rough google tally:

  • AIDS denialist 13,100 hits
  • Big Tobacco denialist/ Big Tobacco denialism 0 hits
  • Holocaust denialist 486 hits
  • Holocaust denier 306,000 hits

So there are 486 hits on Holocaust denialists who are getting some personal gain from their denialism, but 306,000 google hits on Holocaust deniers who are not getting personal gain from their denying? Is that what you maintain? And "Big Tobacco denialism" actually gets 0 google hits because it is so well known those denialists are doing it for personal gain? And so on and so forth. This is ludicrous. Give it up. --Filll 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this in denial? As with any category which can be taken amiss, surely it's appropriate to have a citation in the article from a reliable source using that term to describe the subject? Opinions of editors about whether a subject fits a definition do not constitute verifiable sources. .. dave souza, talk 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure. If the word "denialist" is new (which it is), you are unlikely to find a source calling an organization 100 or 150 years ago "denialist". You might find all the characteristics of what denialism is of course.

It depends on how you define denialism. If we define it very narrowly, we will only end up with 1 or 2 topics in the category of denialism, which clearly is wrong given the similarities of human behavior in those one or two areas with those in other subjects.

I believe we should do what dictionaries do when they define a word: we look at prominent sources like the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, the London Times, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Academic journals, scholarly writing, popular novels, etc to see how the word is used. For a new word, this determines its meaning, until a family of dictionary editors codifies this set of meanings as a family of different definitions that are published in dictionaries. Since we are not yet at the dictionary publication stage, but at the earlier pre- dictionary publication stage, we have to do more of the hard work ourselves. That is all.

It is clearly a common word, in common usage, at least in some subject areas. One rarely hears the word "AIDS denier" although that is essentially what an "AIDS denialist" is (parenthetically noting that in fact an AIDS denialist is really an "HIV denialist", properly speaking). And I suspect the phrase "Holocaust denier" will fade from usage now that the new word "denialist" seems to be gaining popularity.

If one maintains that there are two separate groups, denialists and deniers, then why are there no AIDS deniers? Why no HIV deniers? Only denialists? Seems a bit strange, given that human behavior is not much different in all these cases; only the topic changes. The denying stays the same.

If putting someone in a denialism category constitutes libel, then a very large number of publications worldwide have put themselves in legal jeopardy by publishing articles on AIDS denialists and other kinds of denialists. Given that these publications have full time legal staff and large legal budgets, and the people making these claims on Wikipedia are not lawyers or legal experts, this claim seems dubious at best.

If we accept the gratuitous personal assertions of some that denialism is really a political movement that involves personal gain, then creationists, creation scientists and intelligent design promoters fall in this category. If "denialism" is more like denial of the evidence, then this is less obviously true, since there is a dispute about the evidence in these cases.

If we define "denialism" as some here claim, to only mean those that know they are lying about the truth, then where does that leave the most common usage of the word in the phrase "AIDS denialism" ? It obviously cannot mean "lying knowingly" in this case, or probably in all cases.

I suggest that if one requires a publication to directly make the claim that "X is a Y", to put some article in a category, then we would depopulate most of the categories on Wikipedia. If Y has characteristics {Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4...Yn} from dictionary definitions or from common usage, and this common usage is well-understood and evident from publication in WP:V and WP:RS sources as defined above, and if X has most if not all of the characteristics {Y1, Y2, Y3...Yn}, then surely X can be put in the category Y.

For example, suppose we define a new type of urban area called a "Townlet", being an area with a common administration within a radius of 5 kilometers and a permanent human population of 5000-10000 people. Then one surely does not need a publication to state that "Filllsberg is a Townlet" to put Filllsberg, meeting all the necessary criteria, in the category "Townlet".

I also vehemently deny the assertion that "denialist" is a singularly negative category and so should not be used. If so, we would get rid of a large number of categories, such as "pseudoscience".

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, "transhumanists" or "secular humanists" or "aetheists" might be viewed as denialists by some. And might feel perfectly proud to proclaim themselves as denialists of some overwhelming belief or putative evidence.

For these reasons, I think there is nothing wrong with having a category called "denialist", or "denialism". The membership of this category might be controversial, depending on what we take as the definition of the word. Any particular subject might or might not be put in that category, given community consensus on the word's definition, and on the individual case by case analysis of any particular topic, subject or article. --Filll 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Round Earth Proof.

The Flat Earth's point is that, from the ground, you cannot prove the Earth to be round (See Russell's Teapot). Everything possible on a round earth is also possible on a flat earth. See Earth Society Forums for more information.

Trekky0623 01:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


This is true if you deny a bit of evidence, or try to stand on your head to explain it away:
  • the earth's shadow on the moon
  • Erastothenes' measurements
  • Observations of sailboats as they come over the horizon
  • curvature of the earth seen from mountain tops
  • evident roughly spherical shape of other planetary bodies and sun
  • equilibrium shape of fluid under self-gravitation
  • tidal behavior
  • western boundary currents
  • focault's pendulum
  • terrestrial free oscillations

and so on and so forth.

The thing is, if I introduce increasingly intricate explanations, I can explain EVERYTHING in science while maintaining some preconceived notion, like the earth is the center of the universe. It is just that the explanations get stranger and more detailed. as increasingly complicated orrerys did. That is where Occam's Razor comes in. And why parsimony is part of the scientific method. If I allow magic or the supernatural, then I completely destroy the scientific method. Gone. Just like Incoherence of the Philosophers did to Muslim Science in the 11th century.--Filll 02:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Caused by a "Shadow Object", or reflections of the Earth by the sun.

2) A conspiracy spread by the government.

3) Caused by waves (see Flat Earth Physics in article).

4) Have you seen this curvature? Most FEers result this as an optical allusion. About half of the people, when asked about the horizon, say they see a curvature.

5) The Earth is not one of those planetary bodies.

6) The Flat Earth does not have gravity.

7) Caused by Earth's slight tilt.

8) What about currents? They're possible.

9) The Flat Earth has a slight spin.

10) Where is the proof of these oscillations?

DISCLAIMER: I am not an FEer, just simply implying that you can't prove something like this without being countered by the opposite side. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekky0623 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 August 2007

Of course, absolutely true, as I said above. I could also construct a family of reasons for each of these. More and more elaborate explanations, increasingly detailed and complicated and byzantine. Rube Goldbergian mechanisms. However, science has other requirements as well, such as:
  • Parsimony
  • predictive success

And of course, most of those alternative explanations will fail those and other requirements.

It certainly can be amusing to try to construct alternative theories to explain this evidence. And amusing to try to come up with more evidence. It is all good mental exercise I would commend to anyone. How many scientific facts/observations/pieces of evidence can one come up with to "prove" the earth is round ? (I use prove loosely here, since there is no proof in science only in mathematics and logic).
One caution I have, is that some of these explanations are clever. Some are just silly, like saying the earth is not warmer now than it was 100 years ago. However, the measurements are the measurements. And even when all kinds of corrections are taken acount of, the temperatures now are warmer than they were 100 years ago. Done using thousands of instruments of different types in different locations by different people who got consistent results. Incorrect theories are bad enough, but bad data is fatal.
As to your other questions, it is easy to measure the earth's free oscillations with a weight on a spring. It is done all the time and has been done for decades. And they have very characteristic temporal and spatial frequencies corresponding to oscillations of a rotating sphere. A bit hard to wave your hands to make those observations go away. You might be able to do it if you were really an excellent applied mathematician and willing to spend a few months in crazy speculative inverse theory computations. Currents of course are possible, but these are very special kinds of currents that have special kinds of characteristics that match what one would expect from a fluid on a rotating spherical earth. I have personally seen the curve of the earth when standing on a very high point. Now of course it could be an optical illusion, but it is a very compelling one if it is. However you can put it down to refraction or some other optical effect. In fact, you could even put photographs of the earth from space down to those. As I said above (and you nicely demonstrated my point), you can explain almost ANYTHING away and maintain some pre-conceived notion if you are willing to throw away parsimony and the demands of prediction, etc.--Filll 05:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physics of a Flat Earth

Where did this section come from? If this is official Flat Earth Society material, it should be sourced. (If it's not, it shouldn't be here.) --McGeddon 13:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the FAQ on their website. How would I source this? Trekky0623 16:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Footnotes should tell you all you need to know. You should also edit the section to explain the context of the information; it's not immediately obvious that it's the FES-approved model of the world. --McGeddon 17:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

One has to remember that there is a historical Flat Earth Society, and then its modern version which is more tongue in cheek, more skeptical, less serious than its namesake and forebearer. You are including material from the website which probably means the modern version. Anyway, I would be careful about distinctions.--Filll 17:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. --Trekky0623 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Wall

Why is there no mention/explanation of the 'Ice Wall'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.239.83 (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Charles K. Johnson mentions the ice wall. I don't see the need to make it anymore prominent than it is now. Dash275 (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring my Ice Wall section

A lot of the original information has been removed. I have restored some of the points which I think are important. I have done this because I was a member of the flat earth society's forum for two years and was able to ask many questions about the 'Ice Wall'. I can confirm that many of the theories do include the illuminati and specifically a race of reptilian humanoids. I don't personally believe in the flat earth theory but I think it’s wrong to criticise their ideas even if they are a bit outlandish. I feel sorry for the flat earth society because their forum is just a magnet for trolls, people with no respect were making fun of their diagrams and pictures of the ice wall. Many of the people who promote the flat earth theory claim that there are soldiers who guard the ice wall, and that leading political figures are all part of the conspiracy to maintain the ice wall secret. I don’t want to see wikipedia become another place of ridicule for the flat earthers. --Fatcud —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever consider that there's a reason for the ridicule? Timneu22 14:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Mikkalai, when are you going to help rebuild my Ice Wall section that you destroyed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 20:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

YOu cannot add content to wikipedia without providinng references to reliable sources for verification, please see WP:CITE, WP:RS policies. 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is your evidence non believing wiki wankers = http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum// and http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.0 and http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17682.0

Now who looks stupid? I guess you guys do, for not looking on the Flat Earth Society forum like I told you. I can’t believe Mikkalai keeps deleting my posts purely out of spite. At least now everyone can see that I am right, and always have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Forums are not accepted as reliable sources, for the obvious reason that anybody can write anything in them. If these forum conversations are about a widely-known part of the Flat Earth Society canon, it should be easy enough to find FES literature that mentions it (or published, sceptical responses to it) instead. --McGeddon (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WTF - You deleted the section AGAIN? Look, I can't find FES "literature" because there are no libraries or book shops near where I live. As most of you know I am disabled so finding information is a very tiring activity for me. Also I am unable to find sources conforming to your fastidious specifications because I am unable to look at a computer screen for long periods (doing so results in a pain in the back of my head). McGeddon - why don't you find some information on the Ice Wall? I would really appreciate it. Thx Bai xx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatcud (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid

This article just proves the electric banana, I wonder how many people die falling off of the earth a year then? User:JoWal(81.77.195.238 20:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Once you spend time on their forums, you will find it very difficult to find a genuine hole in their theory. I've been on the forums for a year and I've only found two holes.
Yeah right. Where's the ice wall? Explain eclipses, weather patterns, aeronautical navigation... they are FULL of holes. I've asked to see answers to these issues on this article, but they don't have any. Timneu22 14:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The Ice Wall is Antarctica, eclipses are caused by the shadow object, weather patterns (such as the Coriolis effect) are caused by "gears" created by the sun's heat, and compasses do work on the Flat Earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.127.65 (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, in 10 years or so when space travel is affordable, they'll look pretty foolish... What are the two holes?--Xiaphias (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Again... Really is this a joke?

I know Americans enjoy way too much their april's fools and such, but how much time will last this "article". Come on, how can you SERIOUSLY propose that Planet Earth is flat? O_o (don't answer, I'0m being retoric... I mean ITS OBVIOUS planet Earth is spherical...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.13.84 (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't seriously proposing anything, it's just describing an organisation that exists, however misguidedly. --McGeddon 11:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Types of Scientific Fallacy?

Why is the Flat Earth Society given status as an entire type of "Scientific Fallacy"? There's nothing to distinguish the society from many other societies. It should be removed entirely from this category. If necessary it should be placed under the subcategory of "Pseudoscepticism" but it's surely just an example of scientific fallacy, not a type. 69.158.150.215 (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awful article.

1. Notability. I'd stake a bet there are less than a thousand people in western civilisation who ACTUALLY 100% believe the Earth is flat. 2. BIAS. This article reads as if there is no doubt the Earth is flat, just like 99% of conspiracy articles on wikipedia read as if the conspiracy is true. 3. Physics. Meaningless pointless and redundant section, all disproved.

For the sake of human sanity, can this article be changed?

86.148.203.98 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article is about a specific society of people, who are notable enough for an encyclopaedia article, even if they're wrong. If there are any specific instances of bias, please correct them, but it looks to me that all scientific claims are sufficiently prefixed with "the Flat Earth Society believes that..." --McGeddon (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please delete

I seriously think this page should be deleted, it's wasting space on crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's an article on a theory. 63.227.19.237 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The website of this organization is clearly a joke. I think this counts as something made up in school one day and can thus be deleted. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, retain. Whatever the status of the organization today (and the current "joke" status rightly identified by Arctic Gnome could perhaps be brought out more) it has a solid and documented history and should remain. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The poster of today's proposed deletion tag, now removed, offers as his/her reason "I agree with you, http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2620.80, in here theres enough proof this site is satirical and therefore this wikipedia entry should be deleted." 136.145.175.46 (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) It was posted at "TheFlatEarthSociety.org is Satirical" above and copied here for ease of reference.
This rather short explanation seems something of a "fly by" edit, when a serious discussion would be required for a deletion. The external reference leads to a blog post. Again, the call for deletion ignores the solid history of the movement. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the 1st poster, this theory can barely called a theory... it's ridiculous, it has already been proven that the Earth is round... it is undeniable, even the ancients knew it was round. To say the Earth is flat is pure idiocy. Occam's Razor... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.42.152 (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I know the FES forums can't be used as a source, but I happen to know about 4 people there who actually believe in FES. They worte an FAQ, can that be used as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.19.237 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless they're widely regarded as experts in the field, then no, this would not meet the requirements for a reliable source. --McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Something doesn't make sense...

No, I'm not talking about all the factual evidence that revokes their theory. They say that the Idea that the earth is round is a giant conspiracy, but what I don't get is, why? I can't think of any good reason to lie about the shape of the earth. Do they think that an airline started the "conspiracy"? It just doesn't make sense to me, its like finding a new planet in our solar system and telling everybody its green when its red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.40.135.127 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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. --McGeddon (talk) 09:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impressive

I'm infinitely impressed this is portrayed in an unbiased way. I find it astounding that there isn't a single jab at the theory's improbability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.125.12 (talk)

Well of course, WP:NPOV is a core Wikipedia policy after all. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is theflatearthsociety.org actually an official site?

Is there anything that actually connects this site to Charles K. Johnson's society, or is it just an unofficial discussion forum that happens to use the society as its domain name? --McGeddon (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No criticism?

Come on, every theory has something critical about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.226.5 (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] It's a joke

I've talked to Flat Earth Society members, while there probably are a couple people who actually believe it most members join as a joke. Most of the theories they've made up and nearly everything they say is not meant to be taken seriously. They get a kick when people argue against them, so they act like they actually believe it and then keep saying more and more ridiculous things. The modern Society has a lot of connections with Discordianism and Church of the Subgenius. --Calibas (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)