Shawn Smith - a flat Earther responsible for creating disharmony in society, by promoting distrust in experts and our higher institutions of learning
Written by Super User. Posted in Uncategorised
Dear Readers,
The following conversation recently took place between me and Shawn Smith:
During that exchange Shawn Smith continued to assert that scientific experts (white lab coats) and academia institutions have a monopoly on allowed research, and directly stifle free thinking if not approved by them.
**********************************************************************************************************************************************
Shawn Smith says...
"When anyone outside of the white coat Society asks questions and seeks answers independently, and shares the answers
they have found without a panel of scientific journal censors to control the narrative of the results, suddenly, it is not ok to ask questions and find answers."
"Science" limits people from independent thought - we need permission to hold beliefs about "scientifically" established facts..."
***********************************************************************************************************************************************
Fact check = Shawn Smith is wrong.
Everyone is free to conduct whatever research they desire and independently publish the results (or submit for peer review). However, if you want the science community to accept as fact your research, it cannot be based on pseudoscience or fairy tale made up laws of nature.
Today there is a trend in American society to discount expertise and established knowledge. Why is that so?
We here at FlatEarthLunacy have found that an assertion of expertise often produces an explosion of anger from certain quarters of the American public, who immediately complain that such claims are nothing more than fallacious “appeals to authority,” sure signs of dreadful “elitism,” and an obvious effort to use credentials to stifle the dialogue required by a “real” democracy.
However, for such people none of that ignorance stops them from arguing as though they are research scientists themselves.
There’s also that immutable problem known as “human nature.” It has a name now: it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says, in sum, that the dumber you are, the more confident you are that you’re not actually dumb.
So how did ignorance became a virtue?
To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything.
While the internet has allowed more people more access to more information than ever before, it has also given them the illusion of knowledge when in fact they are drowning in data and cherry-picking what they choose to read. Given an inexhaustible buffet of facts, rumors, lies, serious analysis, crackpot speculation and outright propaganda to browse online, it becomes easy for one to succumb to “confirmation bias” — to look for information that only confirms what we believe, to accept facts that only strengthen our preferred explanations, and to dismiss data that challenge what we accept as truth.
Worse, it’s dangerous. The death of expertise is a rejection not only of knowledge, but of the ways in which we gain knowledge and learn about things. Fundamentally, it’s a rejection of science and rationality, which are the foundations of Western civilization itself.
Summary: And then at the end of the conversation, at least in this case, Shawn Smith's discounting of expertise (human sourced knowledge) was motivated by his religious principles (re: only Jesus Christ can be trusted), and not due to any inaccuracies in the knowledge presented.
Shawn's effort is a disfavor to humanity. Such prejudice needs to be overcome.
If you want to invoke religious authority over that of human beings, fine, but please keep that in the sanctuary of your Church. There is no conflict between science and religion, so don't hammer in a wedge.
Shawn, you are doing a disservice to mankind.
Yes. Do your own research -> go to college and study real physics and astronomy. Not YouTube videos from dummies.
Hi Jonah. If this is truly the way you feel about y@ut@be, you should lead by example - shut down your profile and immediately vacate y@ut@be altogether...
@Shawn Smith: The people and motivation behind the flat earth movement is the 400-year self created conflict between Biblical literalists and science. Even jeranism has been quoted as saying " but I also know that they (NASA) are hiding God. Without a doubt in my mind, that is the reason for all this." It has been recognized and published that the YouTube algorithm feeds conspiracy watchers with more conspiracy videos of all types. Their aim is to keep you on the channel watching videos for as long as possible. They care not about the content. So yes, the YouTube algorithm is directly responsible for the large increase in flat Earth advocates over the past 3 years. But I only advise not watching YouTube videos made by flat Earth dummies - not all YouTube videos. I only have a tiny footprint on YouTube. No videos or articles there. My work is at the internet site - FlatEarthLunacy dot com Over 2,000 articles written so far. Almost 600 flat earthers identified. We use science to debunk the false claims of flat Earth people, and show the world the true motivation behind it all. There is nothing wrong with the science that proves the earth is a globe. kind regards,
@Jonah TheScientist: As a student in college, the biggest problem I have with the scientific method is the hypocrisy involved. All scientists claim that science is about asking a question and attempting to find answers. When anyone outside of the white coat Society asks questions and seeks answers independently, and shares the answers they have found without a panel of scientific journal censors to control the narrative of the results, suddenly, it is not ok to ask questions and find answers. "Science" limits people from independent thought - we need permission to hold beliefs about "scientifically" established facts, as if our minds belong to the scientific community. My mind is my own . I owe nothing of myself to a white coat Society bent on absolute control for the sake of their own grandiose pride and imaginary authority. Lab coats and stamped pieces of paper do not make these flesh and blood human beings into gods that we should bow down to in blind, abject worship and obedience. I find it wholly offensive to be told what I must think, what I must believe, what version of "truth" I must speak. Those things are for me to decide - not you and not some white-coat, bespectacled tyrant who invented his authority over the minds of others.
@Shawn Smith: You are mistaken. Do you speak out of jealousy, ignorance, or both? You and everyone else in the world are free to think on their own, and present answers. The issue is not lack of opportunity or an attempt by the scientific establishment to stifle what you say. The issue is that yourself modified views of the laws of nature that you present and how the universe really functions, are just wrong. You don't have the background to properly understand what you dispute. You may be 100% convinced that you are right, but that does not make it so. American denialism threatens many areas of scientific progress, including the widespread ... When people don't like facts, they ignore them. There is nothing at all wrong with the scientific method. The issue is in your head, due to mistrust and other ego/emotional concerns. The evidence that shows the Earth to be a globe is correct. kind regards
@Shawn Smith: When the quality of your research approaches a level similar to the articles mentioned below, then feel free to submit it to any journal for peer review. There are no restrictions. Maybe you are an Einstein in hiding now to be discovered? Plasmon-enhanced upconversion photoluminescence: Mechanism and application (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405428318300030) Current status of neutrinoless double-beta decay searches (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405428316000034) Vector boson scattering: Recent experimental and theory developments (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405428318300789) Let me know when you publish. Good luck. kind regards,
@Jonah TheScientist: No Jonah. I am neither jealous, ignorant, nor mistaken. I do not envy your position, opinions, or appearance of intelligence. I am simply adamant in my stance and whole-heartedly disagree with you. Furthermore, I am quite able to speak your arrogant language. However, there are times which require the use of a blunt club rather than the sharp edge of a scalpel. A club is best for a thick skull. I stand on all that I previously said, whether or not you agree from your self-appointed pedestal as judge over the minds of others. Bluntly stated, I find your arrogance to be ill suited to the reality of human frailty and your obvious lack of boundaries to be offensive and inappropriate. "kind regards"
@Shawn Smith: With regard to your comment, "When anyone outside of the white coat society asks questions and seeks answers independently, and shares the answers they have found without a panel of scientific journal censors to control the narrative of the results, suddenly, it is not ok to ask questions and find answers..." My response is: I disagree with your statement completely. You are free to ask any question you want and submit any experiment for publication. Send your findings to Astronomy Magazine or Physics Today, or some other for publishing. Did you do that? Let's now validate (fact or fiction) your statement that the white coat censors control what becomes official science fact. Have you in fact submitted a research study to a scientific journal for peer review and get rejected? a) List here the title of the work you submitted, and the URL where we can find it to read for ourselves. b) List here the letter or response that you got back from the journal. We would like to read it. So indeed show here the proof that you sent some original research for peer review or publication and it was reject; so therefore you have the right to claim that the white coats prohibited your work from being published. If you have no such proof, then again, you are just talking nonsense out of your mouth and complaining that life sucks for you. Provide evidence to back up every claim you make. Generalization just feed conspiracy and harm society. kind regards
@Jonah TheScientist: Jonah, you are missing the point. No one needs a magazine, scientific journal, or permission to think, ask questions, or do research and come to conclusions. Where is your brain located? In your own head , just as my brain is located in my head. This is for a reason. No one, and mean no one has the right to tell you (or me, or anyone else) what to think. Freedom means just that. Freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom to ask questions independently and freedom to discover answers independently . Being free from dictation of what goes on between our ears - as long as we are not physically hurting others or damaging someone else's property. If I look out at this world and perceive it be flat that is my right to do so. Just as it is your right to believe it is a ball. The issue at hand is that the scientific community has no understanding of the boundaries of where their own minds end and the minds of others begin. They have overstepped their boundaries and put themselves into a position of ownership over property that does not belong to them : the minds of other men. Let me also add that the language used in textbooks, when describing the findings of scientific research, reads as follows: "It is thought that....", "Research findings may point to a correlation between....", "More research must be conducted....", etc. In textbooks, research findings are taught as theories and more research is encouraged within the scientific community. However, when "science" is translated off of the page and into the real world, it is taught as if society is obligated to believe it as fact because it comes from the scientific community , when even their own language states that their theories cannot be proven to be fact . This is beyond arrogant. It is blatant hypocrisy and an abuse of the trust scientists expect from society. Which brings me to my next question. Who in the h-e-double hockey sticks has the right to tell me or anyone else that we have to trust or believe their opinions or findings? Share opinions and findings, yes. Shove them down society's throat? Absolutely not ! This is what freedom is about, Jonah. Freedom is having the right to decide who we will trust, what to believe, what to think, and to be able to freely share it with others without trying to shove it down someone else's throat as fact - because these freedoms are mutual for all , not just a select few. You have that freedom, I have that freedom, and so does the rest of society. Having differing opinions is not dangerous or harmful. What is dangerous and harmful is taking away the freedom to disagree with one another's opinions, taking away the freedom to search until we are satisfied within ourselves that we have found answers we can trust, then share our findings without censorship or fear, without a panel or editors to decide whether it is worthy of being shared.
@Shawn Smith: The challenge of ignoring experts is that, usually by nature of being experts, these individuals are highly trusted. They work at top institutions that are imbued with authority, such as universities, think tanks, governments, and other research entities. These experts often possess honors and titles, including degrees and offices, which demonstrate a public acceptance of these experts’ authority. However, by choosing to ignore these institutions and to instead focus on other institutions, such as mass media, social media, and internet resources, individuals can pad their mistrust of expertise in an effect called confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the practice of interpreting new data based on your currently held beliefs by seeking out data that supports those beliefs. Individuals experience a sense of safety and reassurance learning that their beliefs are correct and held by others; confirmation bias allows us to extend that good feeling by seeking out supporting views. Confirmation bias is a necessary part of rejecting expertise – in order to feel safe turning away from socially accepted experts, individuals need a new socially-accepted perspective. By seeking out others who reject experts and those who provide alternative expertise, we use confirmation bias to reaffirm our distrust of experts. Everyone certainly has the right to think whatever they want. But as an example, the gravitational constant value of 9.8 meters/sec/sec is accepted from direct measurement, not from a democratic vote or people poll. You can think whatever you want. But if you say that gravity does not exist or that the gravitational constant in really 5m/s/s instead, you are still wrong. There is a right answer and many wrong answers. Your freedom to think and choose does not change that. kind regards
@Jonah TheScientist: Majority acceptance of theories and authority does not make the voice promoting those theories or authority correct. It is not a matter of how accepted an individual becomes (think Hitler). The problem is where our affections are directed. Do we kneel, bow, and scrape before mankind? Or do we worship God Almighty in spirit and in truth? Men with authority demand respect that does not belong to, nor is owed to them. Society, who men of scientific stature and authority demand respect and obedience from, did not ask that white-coated Society to spend their time and money on a scientific education. A white-coat's choice of education is not society's responsibility to respond to obediently. Ownership is the point. The scientist is saying in effect, "I am a scientist, therefore I own the minds of other men. I am more intelligent, have a degree, and have been granted authority by an invented system of authority. All men are obligated to respect me. All men are obligated to trust me and believe what I have to say. No man of regular society has the right to argue, contradict, or disapprove of our 'scientifically' established 'facts'." I object! So what if science is respected by the system they themselves created? I really could not care less if I tried to. I do not care if they have degrees or certificates or have been tested and declared to have IQ's of geniuses. I do not owe scientists my mind. My mind is my own. Period. There is no piece of paper, no degree, no excuse that will justify handing my brain over to another human being to do my thinking for me. There is nothing that will justify forcing me to bow down to another person as if they are superior--king, queen, president, scientist, professor....pope, cardinal, bishop, jesuit, pastor, preacher, or teacher--I DO NOT CARE WHO THEY ARE...Get it? Jesus Christ ALONE deserves my respect, obedience and worship, for it is He alone Who died for my sins. Scientists did not die to save my soul. The Lord Jesus Christ did. THAT is what matters. THAT is why I have freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. The truth set my mind free from bondage to the thoughts, theories, and feigned authority of mankind. I am quite positive at this point that your sarcasm will escalate, but I do not care if you agree with me . I am not obligated to care about your opinions. No matter who you think you are or how much authority you believe you have. Your apparent education has blinded you to the basic, fundamental truths of freedom of conscience and thought . Because of your blindness and misplaced affections, you are a slave to false authorities and your mind is in bondage to the lies you have believed.
@Jonah TheScientist: a blatant example of misplaced trust in authority is the Milgram experiment. Participants were so cowed by the authority of the scientists in control of the experiment that not one person challenged the despicable act of shocking a test subject with electricity, even to the point of increasing the voltage until they believed it would cause the test subject's death! Not one person had the moral fiber to walk away because they had already blindly bowed down to the authority of other men. Every single one of them was a coward who allowed his conscience to be silenced by the authority he stupidly respected.Note: It should also be pointed out that "a blatant example of misplaced trust in authority (my God)" has led to horrible conflicts among the human race that have killed billions of people, because of egocentric views of "my God is the one and true god, and your god is false." - - -
Note: We here at at FlatEarthLunacy do not condone experiments of any kind that cause suffering or distress to people.
What was the purpose of the Milgram experiment?
He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials.
What did the Milgram experiment show about humans?
Conclusion - Obedience to Authority. Before the Stanley Milgram Experiment, experts thought that about 1-3 % of the subjects would not stop giving shocks. They thought that you'd have to be pathological or a psychopath to do so. Still, 65 % never stopped giving shocks.
SimplyPsychology, The Milgram Shock Experiment- - -
@Jonah TheScientist: The most disgusting aspect of the experiment was that participants were even given a shock before they began. They knew how it would feel for the test subject. No one was actually shocked after they began, but the participants BELIEVED they were shocking their counterparts! They already knew the pain it was capable of causing and the fact that it could result in death, yet they did it anyway -- for the sake of authority. It's absolutely sickening.
@Shawn Smith: So now your true motivation for rejection of science and human expertise comes out -> Religion. Best wishes to you in the future. I will not be answering any more of your comments. kind regards,
Shawn Smith said...
@Jonah TheScientist: I'm glad to hear that, Jonah. Besides. Religion is control, just like science. Christ Himself is freedom....There is a huge difference.
@Shawn Smith: - Knocking science is a 500-year old effort to promote personal (deity/God) views over reality. You are guilty of this also. So please come join the 21st century. Right now you are harming the human race. For my response Goggle search - "Shawn Smith - a flat Earther responsible for creating disharmony in society, by promoting distrust in experts and our higher institutions of learning"
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5jHa5WUEWY&t=1s)
- - -
Published on – April 5, 2019
Discussion at - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7ipUKERU0tzYFxALJBli4A/discussion
Our home page all articles - http://flatearthlunacy.com
kind regards, JonahTheScientist
- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
Print
Email
JonahTheScientist said...