My response wasn’t to defend her seeming ignorance; is was to attack the lame idea that someone needs to know how something works to use it. That the Earth is round may be basic in an elementary geography class, but it falls into the category of useless knowledge for most people’s lives.

When the flat earth question was thrown in, she was totally unprepared. What does the Bible say about the earth being flat? She didn’t know, so was afraid of giving any answer whatsoever. Sure, she’s seen globes and photos from space, but didn’t want to go against the fundamentalist dogma.

And they did! Watch the first 2 minutes of this week’s episode on E!

Oh, wait a minute. I have a wall map of the earth, too. OKay, now I’m really confused.

Presuming we give her the benefit of the doubt as to whether she did know that the earth was not flat (after all, how can anyone in this century not have seen a globe, or a photo of the Earth from space), it was her next line in the context of the Evolution discussion that was more troubling.

She said “I have never thought about it”.

If she has never in her entire life been so curious as to ponder such an elementary question, what on earth (no pun intended) makes her think that she has the qualifications to hold (let alone espouse) a position of certainty on the far more complex question of Evolution.

I am quite certain that she hasn’t thought about Evolution either (I’d be shocked if she could explain the first thing about it ). Does the relationship between the effort spent thinking about a topic and the level of certainty regarding one’s conclusions about that topic not even occur to her?

Lastly, the entire panel was steeped in ignorance. Even Barbara Walters, celebrated venerated journalist, sounded like a moron. Why are these people on TV?

Fine, fine, but does she know the world is round?

Quiet_Desperation said:
> RW said, “I’m a father and I know quite a bit about the shape of the earth and evolution, despite the fact I’m a computer scientist.”

> Why “despite”?

I think he was stating that he is a computer scientist, not an astronomer like Phil, who presumably would have more work related insight into things like the shape of the Earth. You know, that special technical knowledge astronomers need to be able to look up correctly.

Victor Bogado said:
> Also I think that she do have the right to not believe in evolution, or even gravity for that matter. If she want to feed her children with fantasies about a super powered that likes to turn people into salt statues, good for her, I just hope that those people will have the same kindness and let you people teach what you think is right, that’s where the problem begins.

You are correct, she has the right to believe whatever fool nonsense she wants. However, we have the right to call her a moron for expressing disbelief of an evidenciary claim that is as solidly supported as the shape of the Earth. We have the right to examine the basis for her rejection of Evolution, and to point out the scientific position regardless of her belief. She has the right to raise her children with whatever fool notions she wants, as long as she isn’t actively physically harming or neglecting their well-being. Somehow intellectual well-being is a different animal than emotional, psychological, or physical. But we have the right to lament whatever nonsense she will be teaching her son, and hope that he has more sources of knowledge than just her, and actually learns reality despite her influence.

Curtboy said:
> Don’t pin her idiocy on being religious or conservative.

I think this particular example, the statement about Earth’s shape, is not a feature of her religion or conservativeness. However, her rejection of Evolution is tied to her religious beliefs, and not just being religious in general, but the specific conservative (fundamentalist) version of religion that she holds.

I think her unstated thought process was that scientists don’t know everything, clearly they are wrong about Evolution, so maybe they are wrong about that, too. So the “mommy defense” was that she is busy with her life and doesn’t have time to scrutinize every scientific declaration and position. She just holds her religious faith, and won’t accept scientists who tell her that her faith is an error. So rather when presented with another “scientific position”, she fell back on “I don’t know” rather than have to accept scientists’ word on the shape of the Earth and then be caught in a self-contradiction. Instead of saying, “Of course the Earth is round, you don’t have to be a scientist to understand that,” she went with “I don’t know if I accept scientists as being right about that either, but if I had to explain it to my kid then I guess I would investigate the matter for myself and learn why it is thought to be round.” But she was not a rapid thinker and did not adequately express her thought process, or probably think to step outside it and analyze it to see where it was going. Instead she comes off as an idiot who doesn’t know the shape of the Earth, and then a bigger idiot for defending her idiocy by the “mommy defense”. The “mommy defense” is a valid defense for not understanding the exact nature of electricity or how to measure the magnetic field coming from the power lines in her house, but it’s a very poor defense for not knowing the Earth is round. Her subsequent statement was an acknowledgment that her thought process was muddied and that she was caught off guard, but she didn’t attempt to analyze or explain her thought process, just blow off the mistake and move on. Thus, she looks like an ever bigger moron because she can’t even admit a mistake very well. “Senior brain poopy moment”. How about “I wasn’t expressing myself clearly or arguing the point it sounded like I was.”

But maybe I’m giving her too much credit.

Quiet_Desperation said:
> It’s the current punditry du jour that conservative = blithering idiot and liberal = infallible supergenius.

I think the connection is that rural = redneck = conservative, and redneck = uninformed = ignorant = blithering idiot. I’ve not so much made the connection liberal = infallible supergenius, but perhaps the connection runs liberal = concerned = informed = educated = intelligent. But perhaps I’m wrong. Note that those equals signs are perceptions, not necessarily realities.

Bruce G. said:
> To put the best face possible on it, perhaps she was simply imitating Sherlock Holmes:
> “You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it….If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.” “

Holmes was a bit of a caricature, even of himself. Doyle was making a point, but didn’t grasp that sometimes esoteric knowledge can be the clue that solves a particular mystery. Suppose Holmes were investigating a case involving the tides, or perhaps a murder of an astronomer and was looking for a connection or motivation. Knowing that there exists a Flat Earth Society that is annoyed by the astronomer declaring the world round, or fighting geocentrists, or having the ability of the murderer escape the crime scene becauseof the particular geometry of a certain bay inlet in response to tidal conditions could be the detail that solves the case. Holmes would have to invest a certain amount of time in whatever topic is relevant to the case at hand in order to know those details. Any number of Holmsian cases were solved by exactly that type of esoteric knowledge.

Were she a mother in who had to spend a lot of effort to give her children a chance of making it to adulthood, maybe, just maybe, I could see not knowing and understanding that the world isn’t flat.

But it sounds like she’s never been that kind of mother. Feeding her kids isn’t enough, she should be feeding their minds, and that takes a tiny bit of knowledge.

My daughter is 11, and she’s known it for years!”

Gee, Dr. Plait… your daughter must be wasting away to nothing!

“My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

“You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it….If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.” “

What level of precision are you looking for? I can lay out the basics of those for you, but I’m sure that they’d leave a lot out. After all, I’m not a geologist, biologist, or a mechanical engineer (to name just a few specialties that could give better explanations of the above than I could).

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/09/the_earth_is_fl.html

Oddly enough, my card-carrying feminist wife was watching the original discussion live, hoping to see if Hasselbeck was going to respond to Barry Manilow announcing that he would never go on a show with Hasselbeck. BARRY. MANILOW. IS. BOYCOTTING. THIS. SHOW. Whatever you think of the man, he ain’t no Michael Moore/Jane Fonda “kook”. When I heard my wife scream from the other room about this, I was suddenly glad her politics prevent her from owning a gun, ’cause she woulda pulled an Elvis on the TV…

It’s the current punditry du jour that conservative = blithering idiot and liberal = infallible supergenius. It get used at varying intensities, but it’s there a lot. It’s the whole red/blue thing.

That’s why you’ll see things like: “You’re over simplifying things, you neocon Repug idiot!” said with no sense of irony whatsoever.

Personally, I avoid such things because I’m one of the two dozen or so *true* skeptics in this world.

For me, any human being = utter singularity of stupidium until demonstrated otherwise.

Wait… maybe that’s because I’m a complete misanthrope, too. Hmm…

The worst detriment for her is that she was not able to argue in a coherent form under a minimum pressure. She is on TV, communicating should be an area of expertise when you’re on the air.

Also I think that she do have the right to not believe in evolution, or even gravity for that matter. If she want to feed her children with fantasies about a super powered that likes to turn people into salt statues, good for her, I just hope that those people will have the same kindness and let you people teach what you think is right, that’s where the problem begins.

Even pumped up on morphine is no excuse, in my book. I didn’t have a C-section but I did have a rather lovely epidural when I gave birth nine years ago. Take it from me, being comfortably numb can be pleasant but it doesn’t protect you from scientific fact.

That Shepherd sees motherhood as the gateway to her true self is quite touching. It’s just a shame that we all had to be subjected to it in such an unrefined state.

Anyone have a copy of “Science for the Poopy Brained” we could send her?

Why “despite”?

LawMom said, “My smart blond friend hates “blond moment” comments just as much.”

Is she single?

Anyway, a blind guy walks into a small, neighborhood bar and sits on a stool. The bartender brings him his drink and the blind guy says, “Hey, I heard a great blond joke.”

A chill fills the air as the bar goes quiet. The bartender says, “Sir, I’m a blond, and I’m currently cutting limes with a really big knife. The woman next to you is blond and is a tough and very off-duty veteran police officer. The woman next to her is a blond and a martial arts instructor. The blond woman over there playing pool is a bounty hunter and our bouncer by the door is a blond woman who is also a competitive body builder. That’s five blond women who could cause you serious harm.”

The bartender leans in close and asks, “Now, do you *really* want to tell your little blond joke?”

The blind man leans back, considers this for a bit, and says:

“Naaah. Not if I have to explain it five times.”