The Burden of Proof

Recently I was part of a conversation that triggered an entertaining memory.  I have since explored that thought more, and find it even more entertaining now.  It was about a conversation I had with a member of a tin foil hat brigade on chem trails being mind control etc.  I guess you can imagine how this went.

Now this isn't really a good way to have intelligent conversation, but when dealing with a person that doesn't want to have a discussion about things, and all my points are highlighted as "part of the conspiracy", I feel I need to increase things to levels of ludicrous.

So, the story unfolded with me being told how this individual had 1500 pages of peer-reviewed evidence.  I scoffed and went on the following short rant.

PEER REVIEWED

I can be drunk in a bar, and have what I think is a brilliant idea.  I then write or describe this idea on a bar napkin.  Then when I show the napkin with drawing and writings of a drunk mind to the other drunks at the bar - they review it.  Whether or not they agree with it - they are drunks in a bar.

That then counts as peer reviewed - a drunk at a bar, has had his work reviewed by his drunk peers.  So, when one wingnut has his thoughts and ideas reviewed by other wingnuts in their own echo chamber, its still peer reviewed.  

I hate the concept of peer reviewed.

Now - if someone said they had 1500 pages of documentation, and a report from someone who actually was on the other side of the argument who provided a reply - then I really want to read that reply.

We have recently gone through another round of conspiracy theories in recent years surrounding a pandemic. They are all very entertaining.  But, overall - my personal favourite conspiracy theorist is the Flat earth type.  The one consistent component of many conspiracy theories is that the foundation of the belief is that a large segment of society is capable of keeping a big secret.  More about that in a later blog post.

One of my more interesting reactions is to ask some of these folks - what evidence would you need to change your mind?
If there exists no evidence that could change your mind, how can you say you can have a discussion?

Then they throw it back to me - asking what it would take for me to consider a flat earth theory.
I have one simple reply - what proof do you have other than its a conspiracy to keep people from knowing the truth?
I also ask some simple questions - explain time zones on a flat earth, explain how long haul flight maps work on your map, all without using the word conspiracy.

Riddle me things like that, and I would love to have an intelligent conversation - but when it slips into "the world is keeping a secret", I usually realize the ability to change their mind will not happen.

Should I write up my thoughts on the other theories that are out there?

So anyway, what is the proof that you would need to be given to accept to believe the earth is flat? 

These are the thoughts that bounce around my mind sometimes.  Just to be clear - I know the earth is an oblate spheroid (term I learned in 1992).