Треть американских миллениалов не уверены в том, что Земля - шар⁠⁠

Вот тут опровержение этой статейки. Ты по ходу в английский могешь, мне лень эту простыню переводить. На вот, займись

Если очень кратко, то не понятно, кто, как и где собирал эти данные. Естественно, не вся американская молодежь участвовала в опросе. Кто именно в нем участвовал - не понятно. К тому же, есть тенденция, что такие опросники притягивают троллей как мед мух. Ну например, если я увижу такой опрос в фб, я просто проскролю дальше, ибо мне влом отвечать на такие примитивные вопросы. А тролльчики не поленятся и поотвечают.

Движение плоскоземцев - это лузл, который  основном поддерживается искусственно.

You all may not know this---being mostly ignorant millenias (19--39 y/o)---but "Do people really think the earth is flat? A poll says lots of Millennials evidently do...." Indeed, the blog of scientific repute, Scientific America, is reporting on a survey of both cutting edge social science and on an issue of great import:

“Just 66 percent of millennials firmly believe that the Earth is round,” read the summary from the pollster YouGov. Kids today, right? But it’s not only curmudgeons eager to complain about the younger generation who ought to find the survey of interest. For despite the recent prominence of flat-earthery among musicians and athletes, YouGov’s survey seems to have been the first systematic attempt to assess the American population’s views on the shape of the Earth.

Moreover, the results raised a number of compelling questions that deserve attention. For example, why is the scientifically established view on the shape of the Earth less popular among younger respondents (according to YouGov) when the scientifically established view on the history of life and on the cause of global warming have been, in poll after poll, more popular among younger respondents?

Wow, this is getting intense. Before we know it, millinials may well be storming the gates of Harvard's observatory, to cart of professors of astronomy to be caged SJW dungeons as Urban VIII did to poor Galileo! (don't bother checking historical accuracy of this statement kids).

This blog post gets into its sixth paragraph before they give up the game, kinda...:

The discrepancy between the data underlying YouGov’s original report and the data provided in the spreadsheet undermined our understanding of both data sets. Frustratingly, YouGov was unable or unwilling to provide further assistance. Although there are transparency standards in survey research, such as the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls, they are, regrettably, not universally followed.

"...unable or unwilling to provide further assistance"? YouGov is a... (checks notes from my detailed scholarly study of their wikipedia page) ..."international Internet-based market research and data analytics firm." That is, unlike scientific work that ought to be held to a higher standard of transparency and scrutiny, YouGov uses proprietary methods that are considered trade secrets. They can, at best, be evaluated for their ability to predict things. But this survey isn't about judging political outcomes---like Trump or Brexit!---it's a survey about (ironically for us) confidence in the belief the earth is "round," for which only 66% of "millennials" were absolute sure.

But ladies, gentlemen, and the gentle non-binary: can you ever be absolutely sure of anything?

Moreover (and more seriously), could it very well be that people might interpret the question "do you believe the earth to be round" in various different ways that might manifest in less than complete confidence? Can we explain this survey without resorting to "like Mayonnaise, millennials are killing astrophysics!!1!" (My first response was to question whether round meant specifically a circle, a sphere, or simply some shape without sharp edges. Which is to say, I think that someone can technically believe the world to be both round and flat, but still be wrong on both counts of what they mean: see T and O maps or Discworld. On the other hand, if we take "round" to be too strict, as in a sphere, we know the earth is oblate, that is, it is "squished" (flatted?) a little, bulging out at the equator. This, to me, is a flexable point of interpretation: is the earth round or is it an oblate spheroid. Which answer is the most scientific? Would you be more confident answering the later over the former?) Why ask this question, a question that both seems to have one obviously right answer, with some sort of Likert scale-like confidence wobbliness? (Or why ask this question at all?)

But the point I want to finish on here is this: the title is obnoxious as hell. I give it to you again: "Do People Really Think Earth Might Be Flat? A poll says lots of Millennials evidently do—and it’s not entirely clear why." The way it's written leaves a lot to desire: "lots of Millennials evidently do" think the earth is flat? No... from the survey millennials believing the earth is flat was a only %4 compared to %2 in all age groups. (btw, don't ask for actually numbers, SA crack blog-team could not actually make sense of the confused data YouGov forwarded them in the form of a spreadsheet.) "Lots of Millennials evidently do" think the earth might be flat? I don't know if people being less than completely certain the correct answer is the earth is "round" necessarily means they think it might be flat. (And you know I can keep going on like this...)

There has been a lot of talk lately, or at least lately that I have noticed, about how scientists or scholars interact with the lay-public. I have a lot of loose theories that discussions like these are motivated by anxiety in expertise, fear and loathing in democracy, and internet-age panics about morals and discourse. And as a response to these anxieties, fears, and panics advice-givers and rule-makers are working to mend their domains. One such piece of advice I saw was to be conscientious of the fact that the way scholars use words might not be how the "public" uses. This is probably good advice, but I think there is something wrong in the sentiment: the idea that scientists are regularly keen about their language and that public language use is somehow deficient. I think both these might be mostly wrong. And maybe it's just a plain fact that language is messy, and trying to "clean it up" is at best triage---it is done during crisis, but is not in fact a necessary part of productive scholarly or public knowledge-making. The article I linked above is an example of a crisis being made out of at best a fringe idea and sloppy social "science." So the hard question is: why are these crises made up? And why does scholarly precision fly out the window when dealing with lay-millennials?

TLDR: I'm not editing this train of thought, I've been procrastinating packing the rest of my apartment up for a move on friday. Enjoy at your own risk.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/99io0y/now_for_s...

Ваще-то правы и те и другие, Солнце и Земля вращаются вокруг общего центра масс.