The world is not flat Prof. Nalin de Silva


Today’s been a boring sunday, so I thought I might as well write about my favourite subject: the astounding stupidity of Nalin de Silva. Recently I watched this American TV show called ‘The View’ on youtube. It had 5 women talking about things they don’t really understand. At least one of those women was a complete idiot. Not only she doubts evolution and asks for ‘the missing link’ (really? How many more fossils you need?), she thinks the world is flat.

I can understand it if someone, who hasn’t seen the scientific evidence, thinks that the earth is at the centre of the universe and everything – the sun, the moon and stars revolve around it. I get that. But I don’t get how a person of at least average intelligence can ever think that the world is flat. The Greeks figured that the earth was round over 2000 years ago, and they hadn’t even invented the scientific method. They had seen the way ships disappear over the horizon. It was pretty damn too obvious for intelligent men like Plato and Aristotle and Archimedes to not notice.

See, here’s the thing. We observe. We observe a lot of things. Then we try to explain them. To do this we make models. These models should be able to properly explain what we observe. The flat-earth was such a model which explained what we observed when we still hadn’t imagined of ships. Then we built ships and saw how they disappear over the horizon. So now the flat-earth doesn’t explain what we observe. And anyway, if the world is flat, why doesn’t the salt water in the oceans just don’t spill out of the pizza shaped earth?

If you claim that the sun goes around the earth just like the moon, you should be able to predict where saturn is after exactly 24 days, or when will Haley’s comet will appear again. If you can’t do this, your geocentric theory is useless. If you can explain everything we observe in the night sky with your geocentric theory, and make predictions, then you’re alright. But sadly, you’ve failed. Your geocentric theory explains shit and predict piss. We’ve got a better a theory. You tortured the elderly Galileo for teaching this theory, you dumb fucks.

Nalin de Silva thinks that Western Science is just another form of knowledge, and that it is not previleged. He believes in demi-gods and shit. He probably even thinks that you can drive devils away from possessed human beings by cutting a hole in their skulls (yeah. Some african tribes believe it. Since all knowledge is equal according to Nalin, why not try this on Maharaja?). I mean it’s alright if his sinhala-buddhist knowledge can explain what we observe and make accurate predictions. If sinhala-buddhist knowledge can cure mental patients by drilling their skulls, it’s alright. If sinhala buddhism can give people the ability to fly over oceans, like Western Science does with aeroplanes, that’s fantastic. Unfortunately it just can’t. Sinhala buddhism sucks, just like all other bodies of knowledge except the Western scientific one. It explains nothing and predicts nothing.


2 Responses to “The world is not flat Prof. Nalin de Silva”

  1. Patta Pal Says:

    There is no necessity Lefroy to be this nasty in attacking a clearly misguided old soul. He comes from a belief system that we do not subscribe, and which will be vilified in time once intelligent people, and by that I mean non Western centric Sri Lankans who really want to improve the quality of life of people who life here. They will be able to how that his attitudes have no place even in the abstract discourse let alone rational argument.

  2. Heshan Says:

    Nalin is actually quite brilliant. Besides the fact that he went to Cambridge, he’s also well-published. He’s a real scholar, unlike the pseudo wannabe, internet spin doctor, Dayan Jayatilleke, whose books have ZERO reviews on It’s really quite unfortunate that Nalin has subscribed to this Jathika Chinthanaya stuff; then again, people in the hard sciences tend to be eccentric in some way or another.

    On another note, you are spot on about models. If the model can’t make accurate predictions, it’s worthless. We can see this even with the Greeks, who preferred to base the accuracy of their results on philosophical, as opposed to empirical arguments.

Leave a reply and get lefroyed

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s