> I don't think you can term flat-earthers intelligent. That's a dangerously low bar.
Well if they aren't intelligent, wouldn't understanding their reasoning be easier to understand? I at least don't associate simpletons with convoluted logic.
> Yeah, dismissing people who believe dumb things as dumb is a horrible thought-terminating cliche.
Dismiss them? The context is: I don't think it is necessary to understand the thought processes of truth deniers [0] to cultivate the "how to think" skill for yourself.
[0] Something that's a 100% true: Square has 4 sides, 0 + 0 = 0, The Hubble Space Telescope is real, etc
This implies you have access to undeniable truth, which is sort of rare. Statements about geometric shapes and numbers can be true by definition, but they are not statements about the entities in the world (numbers and shapes are from a separate ontological category than a telescope; you can't show me where the number 3 is for example -- it doesn't have a location, it isn't an object).
The Hubble telescope may be real. I have more reasons to think it exists than to think it doesn't exist, but I wouldn't call the reasons undeniable. I haven't even seen the thing, nor have I touched it. I've only heard people talk about it, seen text written about it, I haven't been to space, nor have I talked to anyone who was involved in building it. I've also heard people say the earth is flat, and seen that written in text too, so evidently, spoken and written accounts alone is not undeniable evidence.
I get the gist of your stance, but undeniable truth does exist. Just because a few deny it, doesn't make it untrue, if that makes sense. And those few who do deny it... what are we going to learn from their thought processes to aid our thinking? I don't think much that we wouldn't already know. It is an interesting experiment to make one self go through, however. 4chan is one click away.
Well if they aren't intelligent, wouldn't understanding their reasoning be easier to understand? I at least don't associate simpletons with convoluted logic.