OT: Duke Alum - Kyrie Irving and Sparty Alum - Draymond Green Believe Earth is Flat

Submitted by VicTorious1 on February 19th, 2017 at 7:22 AM

It appears Kyrie Irving and Draymond Green are flat earthers. FYI, the Earth is round.

Per the initial podcast where Kyrie unleashes this foolishness:

 

“This is not even a conspiracy theory. The Earth is flat. The Earth is flat. “It’s right in front of our faces. I’m telling you, it’s right in front of our faces. They lie to us.”

 

While serial ball-kicker Draymond doesn't proclaim that the Earth is flat, he's definitely not a believer in a round earth:

 

“Who’s to say that picture is telling the truth? I can make a round picture with my iPhone today, with the panorama camera and make it look round."

 

I hope Kyrie is trolling, but based on his follow up comments he appears to really believe this stuff. Draymond is a Sparty, so not much surprise there.

Links to the various stories:

http://www.foxsports.com/nba/story/kyrie-irving-flat-earth-draymond-gre…

http://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2017/02/18/draymond-green-kyrie-irving-…

Comments

Artie

February 19th, 2017 at 7:45 AM ^

What's the Whole Foods one? I tried explaining the science behind "chemtrails" to a girl I went to high school with who incessantly posted about them in fb. She refused to believe it and still posts about them. Some people just have to believe in conspiracies to make themselves feel better I guess.

crg

February 19th, 2017 at 10:31 AM ^

As a scientist and an engineer, I feel I should remind people that the scientific method can only be used to definitively disprove something, not prove it.  For example, if you have the hypothesis claiming that birds cannot fly, and all of your observations are of stationary birds, that does not prove your theory correct, just that it is not yet disproved.

Now, this does not excuse anyone proclaiming a flat-earth theory (or that a 3-9 season is still a moral victory), but there are other subjects that can be more ambiguous about being proven/disproven.

crg

February 19th, 2017 at 10:55 AM ^

That still does not constitute "proof", but it does does lend significant supporting evidence to the theory.  However, there could have been (could be) another logical hypothesis that could lead to the same results (I'm not claiming that, but this is the potential arguement).

This is the crux of the method - a hypothesis is valid so long as the observations/data support it, but it only takes one (legitimate) contrary result to invalidate it.  The invalidation does not mean everything in the hypothesis is incorrect, but that something needs to be changed in it and then re-tested (thus the iterative nature of the method).  Even what we know as commonplace "laws" in science are still theories, in principle, just that they have been so well tested and supported that they are no longer disputed.  It's all semantics.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 19th, 2017 at 6:15 PM ^

The worst part about science is that it makes people actually believe statements like that.  "Science is true!" ignores how often real, actual scientists have been wrong in the past and how wrong they might actually be right now.  And most actual scientists will tell you that.  Science is supposed to question things, not leave the whole world at a definitive THIS IS TRUE FOREVER conclusion.

Reader71

February 19th, 2017 at 11:46 AM ^

None of those things has ever, at any point, been non-politicized. Politics touches all parts of life and society. Academia has always been highly political. Cinema has always been political, often times used as outright propaganda. And on and on.

What has changed is that there is no longer political consensus on basically anything, no matter how trivial or how historically 'removed' from politics it was.

lhglrkwg

February 19th, 2017 at 9:05 AM ^

and it bites people of all walks and political persuasions. The rise of the internet has given all sorts of bad ideas a home and a corner of the internet to claim credibility. Anti-climate change, anti-GMO, flat earth, anti-vaxxers, the entire exisistence of Infowars, etc. People do not have respect for scientific consensus and get this idea that if they and 20 of their friends from some blog come to their own consensus that it is magically valid

ijohnb

February 19th, 2017 at 9:14 AM ^

don't believe that studies have definitively ruled out any connection between vaccines and autism. I think that certain studies claiming a connection have been discredited, and that is what it is, but I think research should continue into the topic as many parents have seen with their own two eyes what science purports to completely rule out. I WILL TAKE ALL OF THE NEGS AND LIKE IT.

Michigan Arrogance

February 19th, 2017 at 9:30 AM ^

don't believe that studies have definitively ruled out any connection between gummi bears and autism. I think that certain studies claiming a connection have been discredited, and that is what it is, but I think research should continue into the topic as many parents have seen with their own two eyes what science purports to completely rule out. I WILL TAKE ALL OF THE NEGS AND LIKE IT.