the concern about skepticism is not irrelevant, but many of these skeptics also are skeptical of the earth being round, or older than a few thousand years, or not created by an omnipotent skylord, and I'm not sure it's actually a significant concern given the current number and expertise of those who are skeptical
so, we can hear their arguments for their skepticism, but that doesn't mean the arguments are valid to warrant the skepticism exhibited. And in the end, that's what matters: skepticism warranted by valid arguments, not just any Cletus McCletus's skepticism of heliocentrism, as if his opinion is equal to that of an astrophysicist (it isn't). And you know what? It isn't necessary to convince a ditch digger that the earth goes around the sun.
I’m skeptical that these people truly exist outside of the internet wanting it to be true.
I'm not, just like I'm not skeptical that climate change denialists truly exist outside of the internet
there's simply no valid argument to warrant skepticism of either, given the ease of locating evidence that both do
I can walk outside and prove gravity.
I can find a million pictures of the earth taken from space, look at a globe and view trade routes that circumnavigate it. I can also look to the sky and see the sun and moon are clearly circular which makes a pretty good case for a pattern.
Climate change or the age of the earth are based on a whole lot more interconnected bits of science that even if you studied your entire life you could not truly say that you understand. You’re putting your trust in layers of science that add up to a certain conclusion (which is good). When people are given good reasons to believe that science and peer reviews aren’t always legitimate it undermines that process of trust building on trust.
Modern aviation is layer upon layer of science building on each other, but I can easily watch a plane takeoff to validate all of those processes.
That’s it in a nutshell. If you can easily replicate it, it’s easy to trust. If you can’t, it’s not…especially when it’s used to drive politics.
recall the tangent we deflected to was the mere existence of round earth deniers, climate change deniers (read: people), both of which do, in fact, exist as real people in the real world, as can be easily confirmed by anyone researching the topic in good faith, like I said
anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you
I wasn’t proving either, just validating skepticism
anyhow, back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you
There’s not a lot left to say if you’re going to ignore that.
maybe, maybe not. Problem is, that's totally, absolutely, and completely irrelevant to your tangent, which was: you doubted the existence of round earth deniers in real life
(when they do, in fact, exist, just like climate change deniers, no matter how ridiculous either of them or their beliefs are)
see, you neglect that some people are also skeptical of things which CAN be verified quickly, for many varied reasons which we'll for expedience summarize here as "the dumb", and many of these round-earth-denying, perhaps climate-change-denying people are in the "we're losing faith in science!!!1" crowd
which brings us back on topic: the proposed alternative just doesn't seem better than the status quo, no matter how you've sliced it so far, for the reasons given in my original post and ignored by you
The alternative is a bunch of stuff being published which people belief as "science" that doesn't hold up under scrutiny, which undermines the reliability of science itself. The current approach simply gives people reason to be skeptical.