IMHO this is all well-intentioned, but why do so many such video essays like this (or print, etc.) skip over the essential point of science: why do we consider scientific theories as "fact"? It's because scientific theories that stick around make useful predictions. ***That's it.*** Chemistry supplanted alchemy because it made more useful predictions. Newton's laws of motion supplanted some Aristotle's ideas on motion because they made more useful predictions. And so on.

So, in the context of this video, asking flat-Earthers about evidence isn't the right place to start, IMHO. It's "how does this idea produce more useful predictions than what we have now?" To not ask that question can invite a kind of authoritarianism that reasonably may put some people off.

[media]https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-war-on-science/[/media]

[url]https://www.cbsnews.com/video/the-war-on-science/

The term settled science is simply wrong.

[quote="SimmonsTrombone"]The term settled science is simply wrong.[/quote]

Well, "settled" can mean a lot of things. If someone means "agreed upon" than no, that's not an incorrect term. If someone means "unsurpassable, as in a religious dogma" than, yes. Keep in mind that when a scientist says something is "settled science" they mean the former, not the latter. This may not be the case with (for example) a talk show host.