Okay, kidding.

Yeah, but they used to exist.

********

The modern flat earth movement originated with an eccentric English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1884). Based on his literal interpretation of certain biblical passages, Rowbotham published a 16-page pamphlet, which he later expanded into a 430 page book Earth Not a Globe expounding his views. According to Rowbotham's system, which he called "Zetetic Astronomy", the earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole and bounded along its southern edge by a wall of ice, with the sun and moon 3000 miles and the "cosmos" 3100 miles above earth.

Rowbotham and his followers gained notoriety by engaging in raucous public debates with leading scientists of the day. One such clash, involving the prominent naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, led to several lawsuits for fraud and libel.

After Rowbotham's death, his followers established the Universal Zetetic Society, published a magazine entitled The Earth Not a Globe Review and remained active well into the early part of the 20th century. After World War I, the movement underwent a slow decline.

Yeah, but they used to exist.

That I got no issue with. I mean, they weren't on the Internet.

That I got no issue with. I mean, they weren't on the Internet.

They were still around in a not-kidding way to dispute satellite photos of earth.

Now you've got me looking up obsolete scientific theories: Aether drag hypothesis, Sublunary sphere, Miasma theory of disease, Open polar sea, Etheric force.

These are all good band names.

17 doesn't need reasons to be liked. All it needs is its essence of 17-ness.

And, seventeen species of penguin!

They were still around in a not-kidding way to dispute satellite photos of earth.

Still got no issue with that. With these guys? You betchya.

So some of them are Erisian/Dadaists.

Hm, it appears the Planned Human Extinction people have vanished from the Internet. Which would fit with their plan.

Now I'm trying to parse the differences between protoscience, fringe science, pseudoscience and junk science.

All different flavors of suck?

All different flavors of suck?

Untrue buckaroo!

Protoscience is basically theories which haven't been proven yet. So when Newton has a eureka moment with an apple it's protoscience until we can prove it. Not all protoscience becomes Science, though. Often (usually?) it's proved false.

Freudian psychoanalysis is also considered protoscience. It has elements in it (such as the theory of the unconscious) which cannot be proved scientifically. It may be true, but can't be proven yet.

String theory may yet wind up as Protoscience, I guess. The Grand Unification Theory of physics is protoscience.

Tectonic plate theory was fringe science originally. It was an alternate theory to scientific orthodoxy that was eventually proved correct.

Pseudoscience are things which look scientific but have an unscientific basis. Like Intelligent Design.

Junk Science is false science which is agenda driven. That is, the result is determined beforehand and the facts are rearranged to meet that result.

In sum: fringe and protoscience are a bit whacky, but often become real science. Pseudoscience and Junk Science are of the suck.

Also, Proto-Clown liked to smash things.

Who knew about the Brights movement?

Do our local atheists need "a positive-sounding umbrella term, bright, to describe various types of people who have a naturalistic worldview, without casting that worldview as a negative response to religion"?

This sounds like Jen to me:

Co-founder of the Brights' Net Paul Geisert coined the term, and Mynga Futrell defined a bright to be "a person whose worldview is naturalistic—free of supernatural and mystical elements. A bright's ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview."[2]

Not that Jen needs any particular labels. Oh, and some people object to the name:

For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry published an article by Chris Mooney titled Not Too "Bright" in which he stated that, although he agreed with the movement, Richard Dawkins' and Daniel Dennett's "campaign to rename religious unbelievers 'brights' could use some rethinking" because of the possibility that the term would be misinterpreted.[8] The journalist and noted atheist Christopher Hitchens likewise found it a "cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called 'brights.'"[9]