Bill Nye to flat Earthers and science deniers: 'It affects all of us'

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,405
442
1,560
This was fun to read. I watched Tucker Carlson show last night and heard a different view of mask wearing :) Bill Nye does lump together anti-maskers (along with other examples) with flat-earthers, both groups deny science. However, the science used to support the large round Earth, compared to the science of mask wearing, there may be some differences in measurement and verification that could be sorted out :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
His choice to use "anti-masking" as a case to argue for science is not helpful to his argument. It's not hard to find very contradictory evidence from scientists both for and against, though mostly against including from the W.H.O. [I think masks are an improvement over no masks, and it reminds us that Covid awareness is important to us, so we, and those near us, will be mindful to keep our distance. The messaging has been poor on this topic. It's a matter of degree, not kind, and we should focus on that point.]

Also, what percent of the population holds to a 'flat earth" world view? Are they really even a tiny threat to our society? Science is separate from philosophy so if we use science as a philosophy we do harm to science itself.

His comment stating, "if we go get the climate so far out of control. " implies we once had it in control. Science is great but not that great... yet.

I like Bill Nye, a fellow m.e., and what he does, but I hope what he supports won't compromise the importance of individual freedoms. We should all have the right to have free opinions, and that needs emphasis given so much cancelation of people's opinions today.
 
Oct 15, 2020
4
6
15
"The flat earthers, the anti vaxxers, the anti maskers are not on board with the progress of science. And the thing is, it affects all of us," Bill Nye said.

Bill Nye to flat Earthers and science deniers: 'It affects all of us' : Read more
Bill Nye is an actor, not a scientist. He believes in, and preaches, Scientism, not science.
Actual science is measurable, repeatedly. If Earth is in fact a spinning, orbiting, hurling ball, then its topical curvature should be measurable, over not just one, but every large body of water, as water always seeks its level. Turns out, this alleged curvature is proving more evasive to find than Waldo. If Earth has a diameter of 7917.5 miles, per spherical geometry this alleged curvature will drop at 7.98 inches for every mile squared. That exponential factor will be increasingly noticeable with distance. What we find, however, when we take actual measurements, is that bridges, shorelines and other structures, which would be obscured by curvature on a spherical Earth, are clearly visible, defying his spinning ball Earth theory. Per the scientific method, when the evidence defies your theory, one must modify the theory accordingly, but Nye is the one who denies actual science.


Nye is anti-science when it comes to masks, as well. The "corona virus" has not even been scientifically isolated to be properly identified. The man who developed the PCR test professed the test is not valid in diagnosing anything. Furthermore, viruses are not contained by cloth material, they are far smaller than the pores of cloth masks. The six foot distancing is another completely arbitrary, unscientific measure. So, go take your fake science and religious faith in Scientism, and stuff it Mr. Nye.
 
Jun 13, 2020
6
2
15
Bill Nye, contrary to his shows name, is not a science guy. He does not have a degree in science. So he's just another pundit selling a product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynn Kempen
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
Bill Nye is an actor, not a scientist. He believes in, and preaches, Scientism, not science.
Actual science is measurable, repeatedly. If Earth is in fact a spinning, orbiting, hurling ball, then its topical curvature should be measurable, over not just one, but every large body of water, as water always seeks its level.
Every concrete large slab contractor knows that when using lasers the rain will puddle in the middle of the slab due to Earth's curvature since laser beams don't bend with curvature, but gravity does, so to speak.

When sewer lasers were first introduced, contractors had to adjust for curvature since the pipes only work when installed downhill.

There are countless other empirical examples. Aristotle so effectively convinced readers that the Earth had to be a sphere that it became fused into Christian dogma during the Council of Trent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,405
442
1,560
Helio, post #4 defending the flat earth uses a specific math formula to deny the curvature of the spherical Earth claiming observations do not match the prediction for its spherical shape. The examples provided in your post are good and easy to follow but do not specifically address this math argument, something I find common in flat earth circles defending the flat earth as *factual science* :) There is a simple method for testing this flat earth math presented. Does the math correctly predict the azimuth and altitude changes observed for the star Polaris, from different locations on Earth? Telescopes used by amateurs and software will show the correct values here for Polaris, whether in NYC, Miami, or below the equator like Sydney Australia. I have never seen a *flat earth* telescope do this correctly :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
Helio, post #4 defending the flat earth uses a specific math formula to deny the curvature of the spherical Earth claiming observations do not match the prediction for its spherical shape. The examples provided in your post are good and easy to follow but do not specifically address this math argument, something I find common in flat earth circles defending the flat earth as *factual science* :) There is a simple method for testing this flat earth math presented. Does the math correctly predict the azimuth and altitude changes observed for the star Polaris, from different locations on Earth? Telescopes used by amateurs and software will show the correct values here for Polaris, whether in NYC, Miami, or below the equator like Sydney Australia. I have never seen a *flat earth* telescope do this correctly :)
The math isn't very difficult. Here is the geometry.


If we know R, the radius of the Earth, and we know how far we are looking over a curved Earth, L, then we can easily calculate that angle from Earth's center (theta).

Theta (angle) = L * [360/(2*pi*R)]

So knowing theta, simple trig solves for both h and r, as noted in the image.

I used 3959 miles for a radius and 1 mile for the distance, the drop equates to 8 inches, so what is stated in post #4 is correct.

I didn't understand where the argument was going regarding shores and bridges. From shorelines one can see the tops of ships but not the bottoms even when it is relatively obvious that refraction isn't the issue. I prefer to look at cloud tops that only appear correctly when we assume a spherical Earth. I think I have a picture or two of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Oct 15, 2020
1
0
10
Bill Nye is a fraud, and a particularly dangerous one, because he knows enough of the lingo, but he's clearly working with a group of people that are pushing an agenda of control. Bill is actually the one peddling junk science by equating a topic such as the usefulness of mask wearing, which has legitimate questions (and in fact much evidence that his position is wrong), with the belief that the earth is flat. I know and have heard of nobody (and I've researched this topic A LOT) that believes masks are useless or counterproductive or wasteful also believes the earth is flat, this is an extremely basic logical fallacy, he's clearly doing it deliberately. He wants to continue the destruction of society and the economies of nations by justifying draconian measures and anti-social behaviors for a virus that is less deadly than the flu for the vast majority of the population. He wants the perception of the average person to remain at a level of fear high enough to support the Great Reset, which is the obvious plan by global elites to remold the world as they see fit, and it's all about control.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
279
106
360
All, as a gentle reminder, please maintain your civility and stick to the science aspects of the discussion. Thank you.
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
Still doesn't make him a "scientist."
I was correcting the false claim that he had no degree.

But I agree that he isn't what most would consider to be a career scientist. If he has published any scientific papers then I would be surprised.

He's an actor, and an actor who denies actual science...
What science does he deny? If he isn't denying mainstream science, then it would be unfair to label him a denyier.

... promoting instead a religious belief in Scientism.
Perhaps. Those who believe in scientism will likely continue to try and infect science itself, consciously or otherwise, which will diminish its purity and efficacy. Worse, scientism will likely become a cudgel against other "isms".
 
Oct 15, 2020
4
6
15
I was correcting the false claim that he had no degree.

But I agree that he isn't what most would consider to be a career scientist. If he has published any scientific papers then I would be surprised.

What science does he deny? If he isn't denying mainstream science, then it would be unfair to label him a denyier.

Perhaps. Those who believe in scientism will likely continue to try and infect science itself, consciously or otherwise, which will diminish its purity and efficacy. Worse, scientism will likely become a cudgel against other "isms".
He preaches Scientism, not actual science (which is measurable, repeatedly.)
He preaches propaganda, as a paid actor.
An actual scientist must modify their theory when the evidence defies their theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanoutkast
Jan 28, 2020
8
2
15
An actual scientist must modify their theory when the evidence defies their theory.
Interesting that you make this particular point. After reviewing your posts here, I have the strong impression you either are a flat-earther although you stopped short of actually stating this, or are at least agnostic on the subject. At the very least, you've hit on many of the same talking points brought up ad nauseam in flat-earth YouTube videos: science is religion and dogmatic; 8" per mi^2 drop; things being seen apparently from too far away, etc.

If you are, then I must applaud your bravado in posting in the forum for space.com, a science-communicating website which is undoubtedly antithetical to most flat-earth perspectives.

However, Bill Nye's standing as a scientifically literate persona notwithstanding, you stated that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory then the theory must be modified. Which is 100% correct. My question is, will you modify YOUR theory if there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary?

It's the simplest of empirical evidence; all you have to do is observe. Because on these very pages at Space.com are countless articles and hundreds of pictures of the earth from space and it is most definitely not flat. There are astronauts on orbit as we speak, and there have been hundreds of man-made satellites launched over the last 60 years, and all of them report the same. In addition, if you want to "see for yourself", there are plenty of articles explaining simple tests you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate the earth's sphericalness, and the distance and size of the moon or sun, and the size, altitude and velocity of the ISS, etc.

Flat-earth is not a valid scientific theory, as the earth is demonstrably not flat. Moreover, there is no "flat-earth theory" because none of the supposed solutions offered by flat-earth work in concert with one another; there is no one model which explains how we observe what we observe, because such a model physically contradicts itself.

So look, I know I'm poking a troll here. I'm not asking you to reply, as I know what your arguments against demonstrable empirical evidence will be, and they're all frankly ridiculous, untenable, and unscientific. All I ask is that you ask yourself if maybe your own biases, whatever they may be, might be keeping you from following your own dictum that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then the theory must be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
May 15, 2020
2
1
15
Bill Nye is just an opportunist, someone who needed a job when the Planetary Society position came open and found a cushy place to land with lots of media attention. It's hard to understand why he thinks it's advantageous to him and his career to lump all these different 'deniers' into one basket of . . deplorables? He and Neil DeGrasseTyson both are pushing this "Believe Science" narrative which is not only unfair to anyone having different ideas than them, but obviously has the intention to divide more people. Why is this "Believe" stuff creeping into the public discussion such as in Ad Astra and Smithsonian magazines?
 
Dec 29, 2019
96
64
110
Using Flat Earthers as an example was something of a strawman argument from a media communicator wanting to demonstrate how astray people get when they have the hubris to put their opinions above those of scientists who actually take on the job of finding out instead of guessing. I agree with his essential point, that it is dangerous and irresponsible to dismiss and ignore consistent expert advice.

Science denial with respect to climate change especially is something I find alarming and dismaying, given we've had studies on top of other studies, across the world's best science institutions and agencies all with essentially the same conclusions.

That they do not alter those findings, no matter if it is Progressives or Conservatives who commission the studies is something I find reassuring; climate scientists are not altering their result for anyone, not even the governments that pay their salaries. Well, it is difficult to claim that global warming isn't real when a whole host of satellites provide real world confirmation, thank you Space Programs.
 
Oct 23, 2020
88
20
35
This was fun to read. I watched Tucker Carlson show last night and heard a different view of mask wearing :) Bill Nye does lump together anti-maskers (along with other examples) with flat-earthers, both groups deny science. However, the science used to support the large round Earth, compared to the science of mask wearing, there may be some differences in measurement and verification that could be sorted out :)
I assume that we don`t even argue about smth with such guys like flat-earthers and anti-maskers. Yeah, such guys like anti-maskers spoil other`s persons life by spreading virus but we won`t be able to convince them! Most of them still believe that corona virus is a fake. They are like flat-earthers who believe that Earth is flat and staying on the turtle :) They will never be convinced! And arguing with them is just a waist of your time and emotional strength.
 
Nov 6, 2020
46
13
45
This was fun to read. I watched Tucker Carlson show last night and heard a different view of mask wearing :) Bill Nye does lump together anti-maskers (along with other examples) with flat-earthers, both groups deny science. However, the science used to support the large round Earth, compared to the science of mask wearing, there may be some differences in measurement and verification that could be sorted out :)
No one "denies science". Since science is always "modified" as we learn more, some people are just skeptical of certain "settled science". The methodology we call science is pretty standard. But today's settled science may turn out to be tomorrow's flat Earthers. People, like flat earthers, should probably try and keep up more. But I bet most mask deniers are no more than people who just don't give a damn more than actual deniers. Not everyone fears sickness or death. And almost no one cares about others as much as they say. In the end, most just worry about themselves.
 
Nov 6, 2020
46
13
45
I don't think so - as science progresses a true understanding emerges; more unsettled science gets settled and more settled science stays settled. There will be some "settled" science that gets overturned but mostly it won't.
We love to pat ourselves on the back, but I have this vision of highly advanced beings kinda still laughing at what we think we know. I mean, we're not even sure of what our reality really is yet. I imagine we know as much about "our" universe as sea Urchin knows about theirs. It's all about perception.
 
Jun 1, 2020
585
366
760
We love to pat ourselves on the back, but I have this vision of highly advanced beings kinda still laughing at what we think we know. I mean, we're not even sure of what our reality really is yet. I imagine we know as much about "our" universe as sea Urchin knows about theirs. It's all about perception.
Quite possible. But they probably wouldn’t laugh at our use of proper science that avoids making absolute claims of reality. Science is a special way of having a conversation with nature. The more that is learned, even with mistakes, the better our relationship with her and her creator, IMO.]
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,405
442
1,560
Science comes in different forms and observations, based upon the many comments here. Apples and oranges need to be sorted out. Last night some guests at my place enjoyed telescope views of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn near the ecliptic. That science is readily verifiable and observable as well as quantifiable in the heliocentric solar system. Other types of *science*, not so much.
 
Oct 15, 2020
4
6
15
I assume that we don`t even argue about smth with such guys like flat-earthers and anti-maskers. Yeah, such guys like anti-maskers spoil other`s persons life by spreading virus but we won`t be able to convince them! Most of them still believe that corona virus is a fake. They are like flat-earthers who believe that Earth is flat and staying on the turtle :) They will never be convinced! And arguing with them is just a waist of your time and emotional strength.
Interesting that you make this particular point. After reviewing your posts here, I have the strong impression you either are a flat-earther although you stopped short of actually stating this, or are at least agnostic on the subject. At the very least, you've hit on many of the same talking points brought up ad nauseam in flat-earth YouTube videos: science is religion and dogmatic; 8" per mi^2 drop; things being seen apparently from too far away, etc.

If you are, then I must applaud your bravado in posting in the forum for space.com, a science-communicating website which is undoubtedly antithetical to most flat-earth perspectives.

However, Bill Nye's standing as a scientifically literate persona notwithstanding, you stated that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory then the theory must be modified. Which is 100% correct. My question is, will you modify YOUR theory if there is demonstrable evidence to the contrary?

It's the simplest of empirical evidence; all you have to do is observe. Because on these very pages at Space.com are countless articles and hundreds of pictures of the earth from space and it is most definitely not flat. There are astronauts on orbit as we speak, and there have been hundreds of man-made satellites launched over the last 60 years, and all of them report the same. In addition, if you want to "see for yourself", there are plenty of articles explaining simple tests you can do in your own backyard to demonstrate the earth's sphericalness, and the distance and size of the moon or sun, and the size, altitude and velocity of the ISS, etc.

Flat-earth is not a valid scientific theory, as the earth is demonstrably not flat. Moreover, there is no "flat-earth theory" because none of the supposed solutions offered by flat-earth work in concert with one another; there is no one model which explains how we observe what we observe, because such a model physically contradicts itself.

So look, I know I'm poking a troll here. I'm not asking you to reply, as I know what your arguments against demonstrable empirical evidence will be, and they're all frankly ridiculous, untenable, and unscientific. All I ask is that you ask yourself if maybe your own biases, whatever they may be, might be keeping you from following your own dictum that if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, then the theory must be wrong.
The fact some information is put on video does not make it irrelevant.
What on Earth are you thinking?!
If Earth is in fact spherical, give me some freakin' measurements; afterall, ACTUAL science is measurable, repeatedly.
Do you not understand geometry?
There are MEASURMENTS.
Why don't you have any to prove your point?
 
  • Like
Reactions: serhiy1635
Nov 6, 2020
46
13
45
Quite possible. But they probably wouldn’t laugh at our use of proper science that avoids making absolute claims of reality. Science is a special way of having a conversation with nature. The more that is learned, even with mistakes, the better our relationship with her and her creator, IMO.]
Absolute claims such as, "there is no creator", "Our physics don't allow....", etc. I did not mean they laugh at our process, just our arrogance. I appreciate your time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts