What is the Difference?

[mattsmith48]

I was looking at the flat Earth thread, seeing how everyone reacts to the idea, saying its crazy and its normal to think so it is a proven fact the Earth is not flat, it is undebatable. So I was thinking why other things that like the shape of the Earth are proven scientific facts, more precisely climate change and evolution, are treated differently when conspiracy theorists denies them? What is the difference?

To the conspiracy theorists out there, this is not a debate on those subjects, but on why we treat them differently, please do not post your bullshit in here. Thank you :)

[ShineintheDark]

I guess it's because we can physically PROVE that the Earth is round through endless amounts of direct evidence whereas, even the scientific community recognises that climate change and evolution cannot necessarily be directly proven, even if they make the most sense within the contexts and evidence provided. On a basic level, you can SEE that theEarth is round whereas climate change and evolution cannot be seen per se.

[Fritz]

I guess it's because we can physically PROVE that the Earth is round through endless amounts of direct evidence whereas, even the scientific community recognises that climate change and evolution cannot necessarily be directly proven, even if they make the most sense within the contexts and evidence provided. On a basic level, you can SEE that theEarth is round whereas climate change and evolution cannot be seen per se.

I believe climate change has been proven, the US Government even came out with a report saying its real and its humans that are causing it.

[Living For Love]

Shineinthedark explained it well. Basically, one is a fact (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fact), while the other two are theories (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/theory).

[mattsmith48]

I guess it's because we can physically PROVE that the Earth is round through endless amounts of direct evidence whereas, even the scientific community recognises that climate change and evolution cannot necessarily be directly proven, even if they make the most sense within the contexts and evidence provided. On a basic level, you can SEE that theEarth is round whereas climate change and evolution cannot be seen per se.

It’s not because we can’t directly see something that it is fine to deny it’s proven existence, we can’t see gravity we can only see the effects of it like an apple falling off a tree of the movement of the planets, gravity is the best explaination for those things happening and if anyone were to claim gravity is not real they would be immediately called crazy and stupid. Same thing with climate change we can see all the effects of it and climate change is the best explanation what is happening and anyone who denies it should be called crazy and stupid.

[Living For Love]

It’s not because we can’t directly see something that it is fine to deny it’s proven existence, we can’t see gravity we can only see the effects of it like an apple falling off a tree of the movement of the planets, gravity is the best explaination for those things happening and if anyone were to claim gravity is not real they would be immediately called crazy and stupid. Same thing with climate change we can see all the effects of it and climate change is the best explanation what is happening and anyone who denies it should be called crazy and stupid.
So imagine you're standing near a windmill, and you see the blades rotating. Basically, there's a theory that there is something called wind and that, although we cannot see the wind, because it's invisible, we can see its effects, since that theory says the wind is the one responsible for moving the windmill's blades. But why can't we instead purpose that an invisible giant human made of air is actually the one responsible for the blade's movement, and not the wind?

[PlasmaHam]

As stated earlier, I don't think you understand the difference between scientific fact, and scientific theory. Facts are ideas have been proven to beyond a shadow of a doubt to be completely true. Theories are ideas that have some scientific backing, but not enough to say that they are factual or not. Sometimes theories become facts after more study, sometimes they are completely dismissed as hogwash. Simply put, theory does not equal fact.

It’s not because we can’t directly see something that it is fine to deny it’s proven existence, we can’t see gravity we can only see the effects of it like an apple falling off a tree of the movement of the planets, gravity is the best explaination for those things happening and if anyone were to claim gravity is not real they would be immediately called crazy and stupid. Same thing with climate change we can see all the effects of it and climate change is the best explanation what is happening and anyone who denies it should be called crazy and stupid.
But even scientists disagree on what causes gravity. Why then is it a "conspiracy" to disagree on the causes of climate change?

[mattsmith48]

So imagine you're standing near a windmill, and you see the blades rotating. Basically, there's a theory that there is something called wind and that, although we cannot see the wind, because it's invisible, we can see its effects, since that theory says the wind is the one responsible for moving the windmill's blades. But why can't we instead purpose that an invisible giant human made of air is actually the one responsible for the blade's movement, and not the wind?

Because there is no evidence supporting that claim.

As stated earlier, I don't think you understand the difference between scientific fact, and scientific theory. Facts are ideas have been proven to beyond a shadow of a doubt to be completely true. Theories are ideas that have some scientific backing, but not enough to say that they are factual or not. Sometimes theories become facts after more study, sometimes they are completely dismissed as hogwash. Simply put, theory does not equal fact.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.


You can research this shit you know.

But even scientists disagree on what causes gravity. Why then is it a "conspiracy" to disagree on the causes of climate change?

Gravity is caused by mass of an object. No real scientists disagree with that. When to prove you are right you need to accuse almost every scientists in the world to be scheming hoxers it is a conspiracy that is true of climate change deniers as it is true of flat earthers.

[Living For Love]

Because there is no evidence supporting that claim.
And where is the evidence supporting the claim that the wind is responsible for the blade's movement?

[mattsmith48]

And where is the evidence supporting the claim that the wind is responsible for the blade's movement?

Physics.

[Living For Love]

Physics.
Please explain how physics have demonstrated the wind is responsible for the blade's movement.

[ShineintheDark]

It’s not because we can’t directly see something that it is fine to deny it’s proven existence, we can’t see gravity we can only see the effects of it like an apple falling off a tree of the movement of the planets, gravity is the best explaination for those things happening and if anyone were to claim gravity is not real they would be immediately called crazy and stupid. Same thing with climate change we can see all the effects of it and climate change is the best explanation what is happening and anyone who denies it should be called crazy and stupid.

I think you misunderstand my point. Not directly proven does not necessarily mean incorrect or unsubstantiated, it just means we cannot prove it without a shadow of a doubt. I happen to believe in both climate change and evolution but I can also respect that, whilst a lot of evidence may point towards their existence, I cannot hand a Creationist undeniable proof of evolution and therefore they have a right to deny it exists.

[mattsmith48]

I think you misunderstand my point. Not directly proven does not necessarily mean incorrect or unsubstantiated, it just means we cannot prove it without a shadow of a doubt. I happen to believe in both climate change and evolution but I can also respect that, whilst a lot of evidence may point towards their existence, I cannot hand a Creationist undeniable proof of evolution and therefore they have a right to deny it exists.

But we do have evidences that when all put together proves evolution and climate change without a shadow of a doubt. Thats not the point, creationists like flat-earthers will deny any evidence you throw at them. The question is why do we treat the creationists and climate change deniers differently than the flat-earthers?

[NewLeafsFan]

Well, the way that I look at it is the the earth being flat is a conspiracy theory and I treat everyone that them under the same umbrella as people that don't believe in climate change. Only difference is one was discovered a lot more recently.

[Axrow]

Because Evolution is constantly changing, making it fallible. Also noone was there to observe what actually happened so speculation and theorising are done. There have also been hoaxes and misinterpretations that have affected/covered up components of evolutionary theory. Thus, evidence also exists for evolution not being true. Whereas, the world being round is still observable, verifiable and not based on speculations and interpretations.

[WorriIsBorri]

I believe climate change is more rarely acknowledged because people don't want to make lives harder for themselves. I have no doubt that for many, simple changes such as recycling and biking are just too inconvenient for them, leading them to deny climate change.
But that's only taking into account a specific group of deniers. Some people use faith to explain why climate change could be false, others use loosely cited facts, and some theorize.

[mattsmith48]

I believe climate change is more rarely acknowledged because people don't want to make lives harder for themselves. I have no doubt that for many, simple changes such as recycling and biking are just too inconvenient for them, leading them to deny climate change.
But that's only taking into account a specific group of deniers. Some people use faith to explain why climate change could be false, others use loosely cited facts, and some theorize.

The question is not why they don't believe climate change is real, we know the answer to that, its because they are stupid. The question is why do we treat these stupid people differently than the stupid people who believe the Earth is flat?

[WorriIsBorri]

The question is not why they don't believe climate change is real, we know the answer to that, its because they are stupid. The question is why do we treat these stupid people differently than the stupid people who believe the Earth is flat?

Simple. A lot less people are flat-earthers than climate change deniers. The latter also has large companies (and possibly the President) that believe the same. Since there are a lot more people who deny climate change, the idea seems a lot less outlandish.
Also, as others pointed out, time between the discoveries of these two make a larger difference. More people are going to be skeptical of climate change because it's a newer idea. More people are going to accept that the Earth is not flat, because we have proven that it isn't, and you don't need gradual changes and graphs to understand that.

Personally, I treat climate change deniers as ignorant rather than stupid. They either need more time to accept an idea which is new to them (and that's fine, skepticism isn't detrimental), or they are not willing to change. But yes, I do think flat-earthers are insane.