The Problem with "Scientific Consensus"

They say that there is "consensus" on this issue among the "scientific community." Let's examine that.

In the first place, we must recognize that this theory is exactly that: a theory. Not a fact. Just a theory. Of course, recently intercepted communications between members of the so-called scientific community reveal that the so-called consensus is anything but. However, this is only the most recent example of the obvious shakiness of the theory. We should begin with first principles. Just look at the ground, for Pete's sake: Of course it's flat! Any fool can see that!

But to return to the intercepted communications. You should see how those Round Earthers argue! They can't agree on anything: not the size of the "globe," not its shape (spherical? pear-shaped? irregular?), not how fast it spins, nothing! Look at what happened to that fool Columbus. He thought he was going to sail to India by going the wrong way, but he wound up on some heathen-infested backwater, probably not far from the edge. He's lucky he didn't go over. He probably didn't even have any edge insurance.

Amazingly, some of my very own friends appear to be falling for the round earth bullshit. Take my friend Baltasar (please, ha, ha).

"It's all details," he says. "No one is arguing about the essential point, which is that the earth is round."

"No one?" I parry. "I can site you a good ... 5 or 6 scientists who disagree."

"But none who are not on the payroll of Edge Insurance or The Asia Overland Trade Company," he says nastily.

"What about the testimony of your own eyes?" I shoot back. "It's obvious that the earth is flat."

"That's too close for you to get any perspective," he says. "Have you ever looked out at the Atlantic horizon?"

"Not recently," I admit. "It doesn't give me the right answer."