Creative Speculation

This is the standout line from that article:

"not too long ago we believed that the earth is flat"

Who is the "we" in that assertion?

That the earth is round, and a good approximation of its dimensions, has been documented to be known back to ancient Egypt, and has been known to educated persons of every age since.

That there have been masses of people believing in ignorant superstitions in every age as well, comes as no surprise. But bringing up the popular currency of misconceptions about reality is not an auspicious context for such statements as, "most of the general public believes that extraterrestrial UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) exist and that the government is hiding information from us".

You have apparently abandoned your open-minded objectivity in relation to claims and theories about the shape of the earth. It is entirely possible that the earth is flat. Perhaps its apparent roundness is caused by optical and gravitational distortion, that can easily be explained by a geometric mapping of the rest of the Universe which proceeds from the actually flat surface of the earth. Any math student beyond second year Algebra is familar with coordinate system conversions, such as mapping coordinates and equations from Cartesian coordinate systems into polar coordinates and so forth.

We apply an entirely artificial bias in making such conclusions. For example, one of the selling points of the Copernican model of the solar system is that geocentric models require a series of complicated trajectory models in order to account for things like the observation of retrograde paths of the planets across the sky. But so what? What if the math behind the observations is, in fact, not "simple"?

The selection of "simpler" models, such as those in which the earth is round or in which the sun is the central body of the solar system (itself so-named as a subtle propaganda ploy over "planetary system&quot , is merely an intellectual choice - a bias - and does not proceed from any observation that is just as well explained by an entirely consistent mathematical model, albeit one that is more unwieldy and complicated by the mathematical systems we use to describe these things. But it is remarkable that while expressly shunning things like "opinion" and "bias", the Scientific Materialist Claque is straightforwardly hypocritical in expressing a bias over which models it chooses to promote.