In this video a scientist says that you should never trust your own experience, when it contradicts science, but trust authority instead.
They say:
The world looks flat, and who are you to tell me that my perception is no better than anyone else's
I am am hearing that the scientist really repeats what they hear from others, who criticize science.
This video is really a commercial of the book 'The Death of Expertise' by Tom Nichols.
I have read the free preview available on amazon. By 'experts' the scientist means not only scientists, but also engineer.
I am a software developer, so according to this definition I am an expert, because I am an engineer. Yet, contrary to what the scientist is saying, I do not say that people should be using my software just because an expert wrote it.
I ignore plenty of kinds of other software, like Windows, or Facebook. I just think that it is just bad software (or more correctly: has better alternative).
There's nothing wrong with ignoring someone's work, even if they are an expert.
In the following sections I will try to explain why I ignore (bad) science when it comes to the shape of the Earth:
Wikipedia says that scientific experiments need to be reproducible:
The practice of experimental control and reproducibility [emphasis added] can have the effect of diminishing the potentially harmful effects of circumstance, and to a degree, personal bias. For example, pre-existing beliefs can alter the interpretation of results, as in confirmation bias; this is a heuristic that leads a person with a particular belief to see things as reinforcing their belief, even if another observer might disagree (in other words, people tend to observe what they expect to observe).
What would confirm gravity for me would be if somebody built a model that works according to Kepler's law.
I want to see a model of two bodies orbiting each other around a shared focal point.
Models of planets attached to wires, or a computer simulation of planetary movements, is not enough for me.
I want to see two (spherical or otherwise) artificially constructed bodies orbiting each other in a lab; then I will believe that gravity is real.
(Of course such experiments would also have to be reproducible, but it shouldn't be difficult to create two or more sets of such bodies).
Balls on a membrane, as demonstrated in this video that collide with each other after a very short movement, is not enough to convince. In fact it is irrelevant. Planets do not roll on a membrane like this and do not collide after several seconds of irregular movement.
I want scientists to create a perpetually moving set of two or more bodies orbiting each other without colliding.
Why do scientists claim that perpetual motion is impossible, and at the same time claim that the Earth is somehow in a perpetual motion?
Doesn't it rub against star dust and meteorites?
Wikipedia says about perpetual motion:
A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[2][3][4][5]
These laws of thermodynamics apply regardless of the size of the system.
And about planets specifically:
For example, the motions and rotations of celestial bodies such as planets may appear perpetual, but are actually subject to many processes that slowly dissipate their kinetic energy, such as solar wind, interstellar medium resistance, gravitational radiation and thermal radiation, so they will not keep moving forever.
Has the alleged dissipation of planets' energy been measured?
Either way, it says there that the same laws of thermodynamics shall apply regardless of the size of the system, so scientists should be able to build a little model of the Earth that moves without an external source of energy for four billions years and then stops.
I gave some explanation in the intro to this article: People ignore science because it does not apply to them.
I ignore certain kinds of software, because it does not apply to me: Windows, Facebook, Instagram.
These programs have been written by professional programmers who are experts in their fields, but I simply do not have interest in their work.
Similarly, I expect people to be able to ignore the software I write, even though I am an experienced engineers, if it does not suit their taste.
Either way, I am not going to write a book called 'The Death of Software: The Campaign Against Established Programs and Why it Matters'.
Software dies when it is no longer relevant, and so does science.
In the video I refer to at the very top of the video the scientist Tom Nichols confirms that the Earth does look flat, and then goes on to say that it is really round.
Science is not in the business of providing evidence, when it does not suit them.
Scientists are not getting paid for accurately representing the truth, but for saying to the audience whatever their university wants to hear.
The process of peer review is flawed. Was Linux peer reviewed by Microsoft before it disrupted Windows? No. Yet it works. Were Apple computers peer reviewed my IBM before they disrupted personal computers? No. Yet they work.
Scientists have not been able to reproduce in a lab a model of two or more bodies orbiting each other without an external source of energy for billions of years, yet allegedly laws of thermodynamics apply regardless of scale. They haven't even been able produce one uninterrupted footage documenting a rocket launch from the ground all the way to an altitude where it would actually prove that the Earth is round.
Science is irrelevant. It does not matter. It does not apply to gravity, or to the shape of the Earth.
I am tempted to say that people who do not ignore science are stupid.
At the same time, what does it matter?
They just have a preference of trusting authority, as opposed to trusting their experience.
I am not able to tell why it is so, yet I am not able to point to supposed superiority of my own position. In fact it is equally relevant.
It took me some humility after writing the last article to accept that views of people who specifically distrust their own experience, and prefer to trust authority instead, are not worse, still more so, equally valid as mine.
Maybe these people think that their own experience is not valid (and who I am to judge?), maybe they think they haven't had enough experience. Who knows?
Their views do not limit them in any way, and I am not able to prove that my own stance (trusting experience and evidence instead of trusting science) is more valid than theirs.
