Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
lucas
@elesel.eth
flat earthism isn’t interesting as a theory, but as a stance. it’s a case study in nonlinear epistemic drift, where denialism becomes a kind of epistemic rebellion. what matters isn’t the content but the form of belief: radical deviation, self-selected isolation, and the refusal to outsource truth to institutions. instead of mocking that impulse, what if we harnessed it? imagine incubating epistemic dissidents (cells of radically divergent thinkers) and funding their inquiries. not to confirm what we know, but to explore what our paradigms suppress. we’ve confined knowledge making to academia vs internet chaos. it’s time for deliberate epistemic pluralism structured heterodoxy, not blind consensus.
4 replies
1 recast
6 reactions
eatzebugs🎩
@eatzebugs
tl;dr N H H H H
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Thomas
@aviationdoctor.eth
I’m trying to keep an open mind (though not to the point that my brain falls out). I’ve always been of the view that it’s possible to be right for the right reasons (true justified beliefs); right for the wrong reasons (like a broken clock twice a day); and wrong for the right reasons (e.g., following sound logic but being misled by bad data into a false conclusion). Now, if I think of the fourth cell of this 2x2 matrix (wrong for the wrong reasons), I immediately think of flat earthers. Not only are they provably wrong, they’re also “not even wrong” in the sense that the reasoning is structurally deficient. So, in the spirit of open-mindedness — do you have any domains in mind where their kind of radical deviation might lead to useful insights?
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Elias VM
@eliasvm.eth
Nah mocking it is cheaper
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Catch0x22 (2025 variant)
@catch0x22.eth
DeSci solves this I think there's probably more interesting things to fund tho like Egyptology
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
