They display the sentiment of “if we fail this test (show earth is round) something clearly went wrong and it doesn’t mean anything and we need to try, try again, but if we get a different result just once then that conclusively beyond any doubt proves that earth is flat”
It’s a really good documentary because a lot of them actually want to be scientific about it.
But instead of following the scientific process of test->observe->draw a conclusion, they start with the conclusion and look for a way to prove it. And when the prof isn’t there, they simply say the test was flawed, and move on to the next test that will prove it.
It’s sad in a way. I don’t think, most of them anyway, are con man. They’re just misguided.
I will say, starting with a conclusion/theory is fine, but the next step is to do everything you can to disprove it. The more you and other fail, the stronger it becomes
Isn’t there a documentary flat earthers filmed in which they debunked their own beliefs?
Beyond the Curve! Great doc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_the_Curve
I would also highly recommend folding ideas "in search of a flat earth."
It covers the actual flat earth claims in depth, but is very much about the culture, and why that culture exists.
the only documentary i know that has a twist in it.
The documentary “Icarus (2017)” has a twist as well.
Disney’s FastPass: A Complicated History has a twist that Defunctland fans are still talking about four years later.
i assume that “it’s real” thing would have been more impactful if i knew anything about disney parks.
Here’s two different excitements where they did just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrGgxAK9Z5A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFqmDazwb6Y
They display the sentiment of “if we fail this test (show earth is round) something clearly went wrong and it doesn’t mean anything and we need to try, try again, but if we get a different result just once then that conclusively beyond any doubt proves that earth is flat”
It’s a really good documentary because a lot of them actually want to be scientific about it.
But instead of following the scientific process of test->observe->draw a conclusion, they start with the conclusion and look for a way to prove it. And when the prof isn’t there, they simply say the test was flawed, and move on to the next test that will prove it.
It’s sad in a way. I don’t think, most of them anyway, are con man. They’re just misguided.
I will say, starting with a conclusion/theory is fine, but the next step is to do everything you can to disprove it. The more you and other fail, the stronger it becomes