I think treating flat earth theory as a rational argument to debunk is appealing, but ultimately unproductive.
There was an interesting article some time ago: https://jameshfisher.com/2019/01/20/my-parents-are-flat-eart..., which casted the human perspective on the problem: at the root, believing a conspiracy theory gives self-importance to the believer, and it's, in a way, "fun".
Considering this perspective, this phenomenon belongs to the class of problems whose easy angle of attack is the technical (rational, in this case), and the difficult one is the human.
I'd argue that if one thinks that a flat earther is metaphorically a brick wall, and consequently a fool, opposing technical arguments against it is equally as foolish. It's actually the other side of the coin: yelling arguments to a wall is the mirrored human problem, in my opinion.
In conclusion, I think it would be more productive to think more about why this belief is appealing to people (and why it's spreading), rather than proving it's false.
Your point about this being a human problem above all is spot on, and I really enjoyed how you phrased your point about mirror problems.
My impression of the flat earth theorists or enthusiasts is that it's a reaction to a sense of oppression (similarly to what another top level comment said). An assertion of power by negating a "common" truth. I like this explanation because I can relate to it quite well. The ditch the mind jumps into is that it's not that your problems are too difficult for you, but that the whole setup (context that formulates the problem) is a lie. Combine that with a profound distrust of the mainstream, some naivete and some luck, and you'll get flat earth theory.
You can see the same kind of psychology in those that claim they've created free-energy machines and also the "Einstein was wrong" crowd.
It's peculiar kind of chip-on-the-shoulder combining a sense of under-dog angst with a large heap of obfuscation to counter attempts at understanding.
Some are better at this kind of stuff than others, and remain as high-functioning members of society. The Bogdanov affair comes to mind as well Eric Weinstein's mathless and paperless "Geometric Unity" theory.
I have been basically coming to the same conclusion as you.
Another reason for keeping debunking this was for me the belief that consensus is important. That we as a society need to be able to arrive the correct consensus on various issues, and otherwise big tragedies can happen. That any single human can be wrong about things, that's not a problem, but there need to be consensus mechanisms that makes sure that dangerous or wrong beliefs are not propagated far enough, - then it would become dangerous.
And so this belief pushed me into still debunking these theories. Because yes, it might be true that it is a human-argument instead of a technical argument, but it was still in my best interest to contribute to a correct consensus of the whole system, and so I still needed to convince them, maybe now using the arguments that appealed to their human/spiritual side instead of the technical side. Because it was still up to me, as a member of the society to uphold the consensus.
But ultimately I have arrived at the same outlook as you have, and I've done through realizing that none of the flat earth people matter for the global consensus.
If you look around at which people believe in flat earth, they are never important, they are never policy makers, they are never influential, they are rarely even productive members of society (especially hardcore ones). If anything, they make the perfect marketing for the inadequacy of their beliefs by showing their stance in the society.
This is how consensus mechanism works in this area: not by convincing these marginal(influentially speaking) people of the correct view, but by keeping them marginal, - and the viewpoint itself, by association.
I think that every time there is a person who arrives at an influential position, by that time they do it they have already experienced so much growth and so much work on themselves (because that is demanded of them to succeed in the competence hierarchy that is the essence of the western society), that they don't ever fall into fallacies like flat earth because they don't have a reason to feel extra special by harboring controversial beliefs.
Part of the appeal for them is they are convenient shortcuts for unremarkable people to put themselves above actual experts without actually acquiring any expertise. With their newfound esoteric knowledge, they're now in an exclusive club.
Eh, disapproving conspiracy theories is also fun since you never know what you're going to be up against next. They're surprisingly complex and a great exercise for finding logical flaws in an argument.
If it stresses you out, ignore flat Earthers. I did the opposite and got a flat Earth poster to troll my coworkers, but that may not be appropriate where you work.
That’s a pretty good post thanks for sharing. It’s fun and you get to be in a club is at the heart of it I also think. Life is about coping with our existence, and being stone cold rational often appears to me as much of a coping mechanism as being a flat earther.
I enjoyed the Netflix documentary Behind the Curve which highlights several of the big people in this community. A lot of the documentary is a comical subtle troll, but it sheds light on how the people in this community are alike by being sort of social outcasts.
They’re brought together not necessarily by a strong belief that the Earth is flat (though most in the community strongly believe it, or at least pretend to) but because they were bullied as kids, socially awkward, had a hard time making and keeping friends, etc. From this angle I absolutely see how strong a connection these people might have to others in this community and why it would be hard to say “screw you only friends that I’ve ever had, your theories don’t make scientific sense”. They might lose the only friends they ever had.
This somewhat reminds me of the current state of politics. Why counter even a single belief, value, etc. that your echochamber has when they’re probably friends of yours and you know it could change your relationship for the worse (even though I think it’s ridiculous that questioning a political opinion with a well thought out, logically crafted counter opinion could ruin a relationship).
> I think it’s ridiculous that questioning a political opinion with a well thought out, logically crafted counter opinion could ruin a relationship
People use a simplified mental model of your beliefs. You're either on one side or the other. Your argument flips you around to the other side. This is a problem. My hope is that this problem can be countered by explicitly labeling points of agreement, and by being very specific about points of disagreement.
This is what my project HowTruthful facilitates. This article caught my attention because flat earth was the issue I used in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXvU1h44jVw the introductory video. About 90 seconds in, I talk about how a presentation format that shows both agreement and disagreement helps preserve friendship.
Thank you, HowTruthful looks great, I hope sites like these become very common, not only to help preserve friendships, but to help distilled arguments, and ultimately clarify what we believe
> If a human giant is united by belief in a common story, that story can become synonymous with “Us” to its members. And for a culture with a tribal mindset, that makes the story a sacred object.
If you think of politics more like sports it makes sense. No one is going to logically tell you why the patriots are the best team. But you’re certainly not going to change their mind.
The site is down so I haven't read it, but I suspect many flat earthers are responding to people who have no better reason to believe the Earth is round but lord over them condescendingly.
When I ask my university classes for first-hand evidence that the Earth is round, not allowing photographs since we can easily doctor them, nearly zero can answer. Some get angry. Many can't conceive of what might make evidence. Most just insist that's what everyone knows and to suggest otherwise suggests stupidity, ignorance, or support for politics they oppose.
Yet rarely can one cite meaningful evidence they've seen or collected, or that others have seen or collected, to show the Earth's shape. They believe what everyone tells them -- effectively majority opinion. How is their believing the Earth is round any different than someone else believing the Earth is flat?
Most people believe that airplanes are aluminum machines with engines that fly due to some aerodynamic physics. Then there is a minority living in a tribe somewhere doing the cargo cult thing and believing that airplanes are gods coming down from the sky because they have built a pretty enough altar, to give them food and treats. And yet you don't question everyone's belief about planes, even though very few people can explain how actually literal tons of aluminum and gas can get up in the sky.
Holding a minority opinion, believing in something that very few people do doesn't automatically make that belief or idea worth studying. There are many factors and you have only listed "minority/majority opinion" as one. I would argue it is not enough to spark a meaningful conversation. It's not enough to say "I don't believe the same way as majority of people" to make it interesting to discuss and construct complex expensive arguments about.
This reminds of David Icke, and his whole theory that extra terrestrial lizard people are running everything. You might be tempted to think this is some sort of metaphor, and in that light, perhaps it makes some amount of sense. But no, he means actual lizard people.
My buddy made a totally lame lizard people video, with fake doctors using bad German accents etc. He was thrilled to get legitimate conspiracy comments on it! Folks taking it at face value.
> You might be tempted to think this is some sort of metaphor, and in that light, perhaps it makes some amount of sense. But no, he means actual lizard people.
It is often claimed that "lizard people" is code for antisemitism. Icke denies this interpretation, but many critics do not accept his denials – see e.g. [1], [2], [3]
You may be interested in the concept of "Lizardman's Constant" [0], the idea that for statistical purposes, it is not worth trying to separate out people who genuinely believe in lizard people from people who are dog-whistling, stupid, misled, or enacting Poe's Law. You may also be interested in Poe's Law [1], come to think of it.
For everyday Bayesian purposes, it is very useful to simply know as a prior that there is roughly a 1-in-25 chance that you are being bullshitted.
Do you really think he believes what he says ? I am not sure. There is a lot of money in his line of work :) Although I did find this gem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZD3bBWFwAk Not sure what to think.
Its hard to enjoy the content when the website:
1) starts autoplaying frickin ads WITH SOUND;
2) asks for notification pop-up;
3) adds additional pop-up for subscribtion;
ALL IN PARALLEL. wtf is happening to the internet?
I share your worries about websites nowadays, but I can really recommend installing the uBlock Origin plugin and checking all boxes in the settings; since I did that I've seen zero popups or ads, including on this site.
I think adblockers is a bandaid-on-a-gunshot solution and will be a rat-race between advertisers trying to avoid blockage and blockers getting more sophisticated, where in the end the end user would suffer most.
A large portion of flat Earthers are serious conspiracy theorist who don’t believe in things like the moon landing ever happening and are very anti-government who refuse to believe anything coming from the government and NASA simply because they’re the government. The flat earth society is also a cult that people join to feel like they’re a part of something so they accept to go along with the story and believing in it to remain accepted. There’s a documentary on Netflix called “Behind the Curve” which was kind of interesting.
What the article actually says is that flat-earthers do not typically subscribe to other conspiracy theories and UFO / ESP / ghosts cults. This is considered a surprising fact, worthy of explanation independently of the whole flat-earth delusion.
I'm still sure it's a some kind of joke that last longer than necessary, or mass trolling. I'm probably being too optimistic about people's mind in 21th century
I've just decided to give everyone the benefit of the doubt on the internet, it's much easier. If someone claims to be a flat earther, or believes some other patent nonsense, I'll assume they're sincere. If someone makes racist comments, I'll assume they're sincerely a racist.
The intent of trolls is to be perceived in a certain way, so give them what they want and let them suffer the consequences.
I have a friend who believes this and I can’t seem to debunk it for him.
Ships get too small to see before the bottom disappears on the horizon. I can’t explain to him why he can see things like bridges that should be below the horizon.
I think the simplest proof would be that you see farther when you go higher. On a flat earth you could see tall things from any height.
yes, then there are people like me trolling those idiots. I was surprised how many undergrad's can't answer some tricky scientific questions. I think it's because they are taught to remember facts but many fail to understand the underlying logic in them.
Yes Feynman wrote of teaching science to college students (in Brasil?). They could parrot back the textbook, but not recognize the phenomena of light polarization described immediately after reading its description
> yes, then there are people like me trolling those idiots.
Perhaps not the best way to approach the issue, is it? Teach them. Help them by reasoning with them. But trolling people who are already convinced of an entirely unscientific view of the world, isn't it.
Once you have asked enough people what stars are, and if they are closer than the moon, you will become disappointed with the state of local education, and lose enthusiasm for this sort of activity.
I'm in the process of reading Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari for the first time. In it, he writes about how Sapiens' major development over other human species was the ability to believe fiction. For context, he defines fiction as any concept not observable by the senses, and doesn't equate fiction with falsehood. Rather, he seems to mean abstraction.
Assuming this to be the case, our ability to abstract is what is responsible for the creation of things like government, the arts, the sciences, and basically all of our culture and knowledge.
Is it surprising that that ability to abstract could be taken too far among certain groups of people? Conspiracy theory is like a disease, not an inherent trait of humanity.
we accept lots of things without questioning them. there is nothing wrong with that ofc until you refuse to entertain the idea it might not be true. religion aside, questioning that is a different story
There was an interesting article some time ago: https://jameshfisher.com/2019/01/20/my-parents-are-flat-eart..., which casted the human perspective on the problem: at the root, believing a conspiracy theory gives self-importance to the believer, and it's, in a way, "fun".
Considering this perspective, this phenomenon belongs to the class of problems whose easy angle of attack is the technical (rational, in this case), and the difficult one is the human.
I'd argue that if one thinks that a flat earther is metaphorically a brick wall, and consequently a fool, opposing technical arguments against it is equally as foolish. It's actually the other side of the coin: yelling arguments to a wall is the mirrored human problem, in my opinion.
In conclusion, I think it would be more productive to think more about why this belief is appealing to people (and why it's spreading), rather than proving it's false.