WSJ: Flat earth was consensus science once

[Clocker]

I have been told that I am relied on for posting contrarian topics with regularity, so here's one to maintain the schedule.

In a Feb. 16 speech in Indonesia, Secretary of State John Kerry assailed climate-change skeptics as members of the "Flat Earth Society" for doubting the reality of catastrophic climate change. He said, "We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts."

But who are the Flat Earthers, and who is ignoring the scientific facts? In ancient times, the notion of a flat Earth was the scientific consensus, and it was only a minority who dared question this belief. We are among today's scientists who are skeptical about the so-called consensus on climate change. Does that make us modern-day Flat Earthers, as Mr. Kerry suggests, or are we among those who defy the prevailing wisdom to declare that the world is round?

Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV "science guy," say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.

What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

Full article here. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266)

[mostpost]

I have been told that I am relied on for posting contrarian topics with regularity, so here's one to maintain the schedule.



Full article here. (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

Early Greek philosophers alluded to a spherical Earth, though with some ambiguity.[12] Pythagoras (6th century BC) was among those said to have originated the idea, but this may reflect the ancient Greek practice of ascribing every discovery to one or another of their ancient wise men.[10] Some idea of the sphericity of the Earth seems to have been known to both Parmenides and Empedocles in the 5th century BC,[13] and although the idea cannot reliably be ascribed to Pythagoras,[14] it may, nevertheless have been formulated in the Pythagorean school in the 5th century BC[10][13] although some disagree.[15] After the 5th century BC, no Greek writer of repute thought the world was anything but round.

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school."[citation needed] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round. (De caelo, 297b31–298a10

Aristotle (384–322 BC) was Plato's prize student and "the mind of the school."[citation needed] Aristotle observed "there are stars seen in Egypt and [...] Cyprus which are not seen in the northerly regions." Since this could only happen on a curved surface, he too believed Earth was a sphere "of no great size, for otherwise the effect of so slight a change of place would not be quickly apparent." (De caelo, 298a2–10)

Aristotle provided physical and observational arguments supporting the idea of a spherical Earth:

Every portion of the Earth tends toward the center until by compression and convergence they form a sphere. (De caelo, 297a9–21)
Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon; and
The shadow of Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

Roman Empire:
It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat, based on observations of the horizon. This argument was put forward by the geographer Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD), who suggested that the spherical shape of the Earth was probably known to seafarers around the Mediterranean Sea since at least the time of Homer,[23] citing a line from the Odyssey[24] as indicating that the poet Homer knew of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC. Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this.[25]

Claudius Ptolemy (90–168 AD) lived in Alexandria, the centre of scholarship in the 2nd century. In the Almagest, which remained the standard work of astronomy for 1,400 years, he advanced many arguments for the spherical nature of the Earth. Among them was the observation that when a ship is sailing towards mountains, observers note these seem to rise from the sea, indicating that they were hidden by the curved surface of the sea. He also gives separate arguments that the Earth is curved north-south and that it is curved east-west.[26]

Late Antiquity
Knowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth was received in scholarship of Late Antiquity as a matter of course, in both Neoplatonism and Early Christianity. Calcidius's fourth-century Latin commentary on and translation of Plato's Timaeus, which was one of the few examples of Greek scientific thought that was known in the Early Middle Ages, discussed Hipparchus's use of the geometrical circumstances of eclipses to compute the relative diameters of the Sun, Earth, and Moon.

Middle Ages[edit]
Knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth survived into the medieval corpus of knowledge by direct transmission of the texts of Greek antiquity (Aristotle), and via authors such as Isidore of Seville and Beda Venerabilis. It became increasingly traceable with the rise of scholasticism and medieval learning.[22] Spread of this knowledge beyond the immediate sphere of Greco-Roman scholarship was necessarily gradual, associated with the pace of Christianisation of Europe. For example, the first evidence of knowledge of the spherical shape of the Earth in Scandinavia is a 12th-century Old Icelandic translation of Elucidarius.[34]

A non-exhaustive list of more than a hundred Latin and vernacular writers from Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages who were aware that the earth was spherical, has been compiled by Reinhard Krüger, professor for Romance literature at the University of Stuttgart.[22]

[show]Krüger's list of the 79 authors known by name can be studied by clicking on "show":

I will stop there. This is less than half the list of reputable scientists and philosophers who taught that the earth was a sphere. If some, less reputable scholars felt differently that is not relevant. The best minds of the era understood the truth.

Maybe the peasants of ancient times and the middle ages thought the earth was flat. Anyone with any education knew that it was a sphere.

The dumbest thing about the article and your post is the supposition that being in the minority or the majority on the subject of climate change has any effect on the accuracy of your position. In this case consensus science is right not because it is consensus, because it overwhelming, peer reviewed, science. Denier "science" is overwhelmingly industry sponsored, non peer reviewed science.

[tucker6]

Mostie,

You missed Clocker's point, which was an excellent one. His point was that Kerry's assertion that Skeptics=Flat Earthers is completely untrue since Flat Earth was "accepted science". It is more correct to say that AGW Alarmists=Flat Earthers.

Skeptics=round worlders
Alarmists=flat earthers

Got it???

I guess you and Kerry are two birds of a feather.

[Clocker]

Also from Wiki:
The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century.

Flat earth was consensus science back then.

[tucker6]

Also from Wiki:


Flat earth was consensus science back then.
Facts are not invited guests at this party sir. Please discontinue use of facts.

[Clocker]

In this case consensus science is right not because it is consensus, because it overwhelming, peer reviewed, science.

You are apparently oblivious to the fact that this is a circular definition. Consensus science is right because it is peer reviewed, which means that the experts have come to a consensus.

[Clocker]

Facts are not invited guests at this party sir. Please discontinue use of facts.

Please, just one more. I've got it all warmed up and ready to go.

Eventually, consensus science evolved to the point of agreeing that the earth was round.

And that the sun and the stars revolved around the earth. That was consensus science until when, maybe the middle ages?

[tucker6]

Please, just one more. I've got it all warmed up and ready to go.

Eventually, consensus science evolved to the point of agreeing that the earth was round.

And that the sun and the stars revolved around the earth. That was consensus science until when, maybe the middle ages?
Let me ask you the questions that Mostie will want to ask when he gets back from lunch. Are you trying to insinuate that the Earth is not the center of the universe? Really?? Because I have Aristotle on my side that says different. He and Socrates agree with me. :D

[Clocker]

Let me ask you the questions that Mostie will want to ask when he gets back from lunch. Are you trying to insinuate that the Earth is not the center of the universe? Really?? Because I have Aristotle on my side that says different. He and Socrates agree with me. :D

Aristotle and Socrates were not Democrats, whose consensus science is that Obama is the center of the universe.

[tucker6]

Aristotle and Socrates were not Democrats, whose consensus science is that Obama is the center of the universe.

only now do they realize we were right all along about Obama. :bang:

[hcap]

Aristotle and Socrates were not Democrats, whose consensus science is that Obama is the center of the universe.Another idiotic thread claiming fools are really the wise men. Historically speaking that is.

[tucker6]

Another idiotic thread claiming fools are really the wise men. Historically speaking that is.
what took you so long to provide your ad hominem attack?

PS. - How's it going? Send me a PM.

[hcap]

what took you so long to provide your ad hominem attack?

PS. - How's it going? Send me a PM.Sorry I am not as good as you guys with ad obaminem, ad librerinem type responses :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

Another idiotic thread claiming fools are really the wise men. Historically speaking that is.

Au contraire, another successful thread with a double bagger.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Trolling_drawing.jpg/300px-Trolling_drawing.jpg
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8drVb3KoNAx-q4e80rBOBnbgVLdBrl_BXlseKXtJQXg29bkWv)

[mostpost]

Another idiotic thread claiming fools are really the wise men. Historically speaking that is.
I was looking at a video about the fact that 25% of Americans do not know that the earth circles the sun. The commentator mentioned something called the Dunning Kruger effect. I looked up the Dunning Kruger effect on Wikipedia and learned that it refers to the fact that people who lack knowledge of a subject never realize that they lack that knowledge and always overestimate their proficiency. Accompanying the article was a picture of Clocker.

[hcap]

Come now, we all knew it was a joke. Everyone knew you were being farcical.

That WSJ article was really an April 1st special, but they had a newly hired climate skeptic in charge of the date math (and all maps.)

[rastajenk]

Then you might be interested in this link (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/17/study-democrats-more-likely-to-think-astrology-is-scientific-less-likely-to-know-earth-revolves-around-the-sun/), Mostie. Apparently astrology is alive and well among low-information DemLibs.

[Clocker]

I was looking at a video about the fact that 25% of Americans do not know that the earth circles the sun.


I read about that (http://hotair.com/archives/2014/02/17/study-democrats-more-likely-to-think-astrology-is-scientific-less-likely-to-know-earth-revolves-around-the-sun/).


http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/sun.jpg


http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/astro.jpg

[Clocker]

That WSJ article was really an April 1st special, but they had a newly hired climate skeptic in charge of the date math (and all maps.)

No, I never fish with artificial bait. The fact that it is true doesn't mean it can't be used to roil the water.

And I still haven't seen a hint of a real argument that flat earth or geocentricity were not consensus science in their time.

[davew]

everone knows the earth revolves around 0bama


I would like links to "scientific proof" of climate change theory plz

[rastajenk]

My current favorite is that homosexuality was a mental illness as recently as the 70's, according the American Psychiatric Association.

[hcap]

No, I never fish with artificial bait. The fact that it is true doesn't mean it can't be used to roil the water.

And I still haven't seen a hint of a real argument that flat earth or geocentricity were not consensus science in their time.What you get wrong is that the consensus of a flat earth way back when was not at all a scientific consensus

In fact the scientific method had not really become commonplace in Europe at the time of the flat earthers. Just as it now stands, it has yet to be adopted by pace advantage conservatives or the rethugs in congress :D

[hcap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[3] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[4]

So I will amend my statetement. Although the scientific method was in it's infancey in Europe, remnants of older Greek science was still known and accepted by educated European scholars. The flat earthers were mostly uneducated (probably read the Daily Caller and watched Fox). Would not at all be surprised if there was a guy making the rounds of town squares tacking notices on walls named Anthony who's byline was " What's per chance is Up widst Such as as That? " :jump:

Well, duh!

[incoming]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[3] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[4]

So I will amend my statetement. Although the scientific method was in it's infancey in Europe, remnants of older Greek science was still known and accepted by educated European scholars. The flat earthers were mostly uneducated (probably read the Daily Caller and watched Fox). Would not at all be surprised if there was a guy making the rounds of town squares tacking notices on walls named Anthony who's byline was " What's per chance is Up widst Such as as That? " :jump:

Well, duh!

Amazing!!! Is that "lipstick" you wear on your little girl face? :) ;)

[boxcar]

Also from Wiki:


Flat earth was consensus science back then.

And darn near an unanimous one at that...except for one little exception that long predates the ancient Greek or Roman geniuses:

Isa 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
NIV

Boxcar

[Racetrack Playa]

And darn near an unanimous one at that...except for one little exception that long predates the ancient Greek or Roman geniuses:

Isa 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
NIV

Boxcar
awe i,m shocked

[hcap]

Amazing!!! Is that "lipstick" you wear on your little girl face? :) ;)What are you talking about?

[TJDave]

And darn near an unanimous one at that...except for one little exception that long predates the ancient Greek or Roman geniuses:

Isa 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
NIV

Boxcar

Except that a circle does not mean a sphere. In Isaiah's time man believed the earth to be a flat disk.

[Clocker]

Except that a circle does not mean a sphere. In Isaiah's time man believed the earth to be a flat disk.

Bingo. The circle of the earth and the heavens like a canopy:

The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. ....It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common Wiki

[Robert Goren]

If I were a conservative I would not want to bring up outdated beliefs when there so many creationists among the conservatives.........Just saying.

[DJofSD]

For once, I am agreeing with some of what Mostie has posted.

Ancient civilizations did know the earth was round. What was still debated was whether the earth was the center of the universe and if the sun revolved around the earth.

The reason why the flat earth myth persisted was because it served the purposes of the Catholic Church. Galileo was persecuted by the church because they knew if his discoveries from his observations especially the moons orbiting Jupiter were to become known and the implications understood, the control and authority of the church would be in jeopardy.

[Tom]

If I were a conservative I would not want to bring up outdated beliefs when there so many creationists among the conservatives.........Just saying.

If man came from the monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Just saying.

[hcap]

Bingo. The circle of the earth and the heavens like a canopy:

The Flat Earth model is an archaic belief that the Earth's shape is a plane or disk. ....It was also typically held in the aboriginal cultures of the Americas, and a flat Earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is common
WikiAt one time sacrificing animals, stoning witches and taking slaves were the comm accepted rules and practices. Kind of a stretch to lump 21st century science in with these primitive practices. Unless your name rhymes with "slot car"

So?

PS: see posts 22 and 23

[Clocker]

Ancient civilizations did know the earth was round. What was still debated was whether the earth was the center of the universe and if the sun revolved around the earth.

Many ancient civilizations did not know the earth was round. But nitpicking over the details of who did or didn't know, when and where, is pointless. Some civilization, some where, some time, thought the world was flat. Some civilization, some where, some time, thought the earth was the center of universe. The details don't matter.

The point is that many, many times throughout history, consensus science has been shown to be in error, and to criticize and dismiss someone just for questioning consensus science is anti-intellectual and hugely egotistical.

[mostpost]

If man came from the monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Just saying.
If branches came from trees, why are there still trees?
If kids came from parents, why are there still parents?

[mostpost]

For once, I am agreeing with some of what Mostie has posted.

Ancient civilizations did know the earth was round. What was still debated was whether the earth was the center of the universe and if the sun revolved around the earth.

The reason why the flat earth myth persisted was because it served the purposes of the Catholic Church. Galileo was persecuted by the church because they knew if his discoveries from his observations especially the moons orbiting Jupiter were to become known and the implications understood, the control and authority of the church would be in jeopardy.
everyone knows that the sun-and the universe revolves around Boxcar-and Boxcar is on the earth-so.........

[TJDave]

If man came from the monkeys, why are there still monkeys?


I can fix that.
God

[incoming]

If branches came from trees, why are there still trees?
If kids came from parents, why are there still parents?


Hcap, you take this one, it is right in the middle of your thought process.

[hcap]

Hcap, you take this one, it is right in the middle of your thought process.Gee 33 posts, already a fountain of wisdom. :sleeping:

[HUSKER55]

typical liberal thought process

get rid of parents and train the kids not to think for themselves
no branches on trees means no leaves to rake just a big tree trunk in the yard

see how this goes

[hcap]

typical liberal thought process

get rid of parents and train the kids not to think for themselves
no branches on trees means no leaves to rake just a big tree trunk in the yard

see how this goesNo one has suggested this. What thread are you reading?

[boxcar]

If branches came from trees, why are there still trees?
If kids came from parents, why are there still parents?

So...you're saying that branches evolved from trees and kids evolved from parents? Stay away -- far, far away from analogies, Mosty. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[fast4522]

as good a place as any . . . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YCeIgt7hMs