You’re being downvoted by idealists.

I was an idealist, so I understand the position.

Ideally, you explain your position and they explain theirs and it’s an open dialogue. Truthfully, you could be wrong about any number of things you have resolute conviction about- even things you believe are well evidenced.

The cynic in me is aware that actually us as individuals have finite time and mental energy to keep debating things which are base, and our lives are improved by just accepting some base assumptions and engaging our energy at higher levels instead of litigating the basics.

We don't even really have time or energy to debate the higher levels with other people. Maybe if it's a friend or family or someone you're close with. But arguing with strangers, at least imo, is a total waste of time most of the time.

Just nod and smile :)

> You’re being downvoted by idealists.

Seems more likely the downvotes are related to the last sentence. Telling someone they are “full of shit” is not the type of curious discourse HN wants to promote.

That being the case, you might be getting downvoted for incorrectly assessing the situation and inaccurately placing blame.

I’m speculating, as it’s impossible to know what went through the heads of those who came before, but seems like a reasonable explanation to me.

> You’re being downvoted by idealists.

No, I think they are being downvoted because they dismiss a thoughtful comment that makes a good attempt at providing an actual answer to the question at hand as "full of shit".

> actually us as individuals have finite time and mental energy to keep debating things which are base, and our lives are improved by just accepting some base assumptions and engaging our energy at higher levels instead of litigating the basics.

Which is precisely why most people considered Earth to be flat until it became more fashionable to consider it spherical, and continue to believe it's spherical because that remains in vogue.

I mean, it's not like people in general suddenly got gained some intrinsic reasons for getting to the true nature of things. Nah, all that changed is what you have to say so others don't think you're stupid.

Call it a more realistic take: humans are social animals. Ever since we started cooperating in groups, the social reality became more important to our survival than actual physical reality. For better or worse, that is a fact of nature. You may argue all you want that the sky is blue, but if the rest of your tribe calls it green, all you'll accomplish is to get yourself shunned and cast out and then eaten by wild animals.

"Is Earth flat or round", from the perspective of a regular person across all history: why are you asking me that question?. The answer has no direct, immediate relevance to anyone's lives - so either you're contrarian, or trying to pick a fight, or have some political angle, or just have too much idle time. Either of that means you're a potential threat. The right answer is always "flat" or "spherical" depending on the time period you live in, followed by "go away and do something useful for a change".

Note: I'm not promoting idiocy or lack of interest into the nature of things - all I'm saying, one needs to cut other people some slack. Most people aren't idiots; if they're holding on to "wrong" beliefs there's probably a damn good reason for it, and with some politically charged questions they may actually be smarter, on a pragmatic/survival level, in giving the "wrong" answer, than someone rocking the boat.

If you want to convince people, don't assume they're idiots - rather, try to connect your arguments to their experience, so getting it right matters to them, and then - that's the pragmatic/cynical part - be ready to accept that, in some cases, having the right answer doesn't matter in practice.