|Hair Color||Ultra long|
|Seeking||Wanting A Adult Girl|
|Relation Type||Ecperience With Older Women|
Your opponents will love this and turn the talk into a battlefield of competing claims and counterclaims.
The statement 'there is no scientific consensus for the flat-Earth view' has no scientific consensus. How to recognise We move to the most powerful weapon in the fringe armoury: the argument from reversed burden of proof.
Second, because science eartth ignores pseudoscience, it is often very difficult to find reliable sources that describe some pseudoscientific view as pseudoscientific. It's impossible to write a balanced article or describe a fringe theory in an objective way if the sources being used have a stake in promoting a specific fringe theory.
The flat earth people in the chat. 🤦♂️
But many dedicated fringe advocates are familiar with these policies, and have become expert at gaming them or even using them against neutrally-minded but inexpert editors. Typical pseudoscience sources include: Dedicated websites normally registered under a. This is a classic conspiracy theory. For example, recently at a controversial article, it was once argued 'Actually, those really shouldn't be used as sources on this topic because to my knowledge they haven't written anything pro-X, and hence really can't be considered third party.
Criticism of the flat Earth theory should be glat by criticism of the round Earth theory. They may claim that any critical or negative material cannot appear in an article since it is biased.
They know that sometimes these fallacies are propagated not out of malice, but ignorance. All theories that are not generally accepted have a part of the theory devoted to explaining why this is. By contrast, speculation on "amazing new ideas" is stimulating, easy, and fun. Or they may claim that to disagree with an editor with a fringe agenda is claimed to be uncivil, a personal attack violation of No personal attacksa violation of Do not bite the newcomers or a violation of Assume good faith.
Fringe theories are no exception. The ball is in your court Examples X's paper on 'scientific fallacies' contains only passing reference to the 'flat Earth fallacy'.
Since established scientists attended a flat-Earth conference, it follows they take the theory seriously. It may even be claimed that sources that disagree with the fringe point of view cannot be used if they reflect poorly on any living people who are proponents of the fringe point of view such as critical book reviews, etc. Their theory is not accepted because the black suits in the Scientific Establishment are not concerned about the pursuit of truthbut are much more concerned about not rocking the boat in order to protect their vested interests.
Recommended for you
There is already criticism of the theory in the article, section This is difficult for two reasons. Criticism glat come second, e. X, Y and Z are hard-line skeptics about flat-Earthism. Here's a review.
We went to a flat-Earth convention and found a lesson about the future of post-truth life
You can about this book at the Worlds of Their Own website. Self-evidently, the mainstream view of what is accepted knowledge in a discipline has the largest following and as such the most due weight in the literature. Science is stodgy, typically not glamorous, and entails hard work. This maneuvering and filibustering is soon likely to exhaust the patience of any reasonable person who naturally prefers not to reason with the unreasonable, and who, unlike the advocate, has no special interest or passion other than striving to maintain neutrality.
They will claim that the scientific establishment is afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the truth.
Reversed burden of proof[ edit ] What a scorcher! They will propose that negative material be forked off lfat another article, or relegated into a "criticism ghetto" or criticism section or removed from the Lead section. Ten types of arguments[ edit ] Arguments commonly used by fringe advocates to support inclusion of marginal viewpoints against official policies fall into a small of flt recognizable.
So what if the article on flat Earth theory is k, and the round Earth article only 8k? Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.
A sampling of Bob's 3D artistic creations. You can't say "modern geologists reject Rosencranz's theories. Slam it back. Any scientist who tried to study flat Earth theory would lose his research funding. Claims must be balanced Examples You must not say 'the Earth is not flat' but 'according to critics of the flat Earth theory, the Earth is not flat'.
Instead, we have the most successful, motivated force on the planet. To use a different metaphor, it is assumed that the established theory has jumped over a very high hurdle to gain its leading position and that any challenger must jump over an equally high hurdle before being in contention for the remainder of the race.
He generously consented to let me provide a web home for these documents, all of which are copyrighted. For example, they argue that an editor is biased towards the mainstream, or that editors are ganging eartj because their arguments are so similar even though they chhat be similar — the main argument against the Earth being flat is topographicaland it is hard to argue against it without repeating the argument.
The latter often find their efforts subverted at every step by advocates who revert war over edits, frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information, argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause. Sources that remain silent on the issue should be discarded. If the scientific establishment has marginalized him this is not really surprising.
By Group Chat
How to reply This argument is often difficult to address. They may demand that every statement of fact should be attributed, no matter how universally accepted. Some of them will even claim that there are no facts, arguing that if a fringe minority, not present in any reliable sources, disagrees with a widely accepted fact, it violates Neutral point of view to state it as a fact in the article.
They do not automatically view supporters of fringe theories as "the enemy". There are published sources including PubMed that back up the view that people use Flat Earth theory as an adjunct to their existing qualifications and businesses. Rosencrantz was tremendously rude about scientists who claimed the Earth was round. Also, in such cases it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources.
Insist that the burden is theirs.