tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/flat-earth-24353/articlesFlat Earth – The Conversation2023-01-24T13:22:32Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1969192023-01-24T13:22:32Z2023-01-24T13:22:32ZLots of people believe in Bigfoot and other pseudoscience claims – this course examines why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505185/original/file-20230118-22-sxk00c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C0%2C1979%2C997&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't believe the hype about Bigfoot, a flat Earth or ancient aliens.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Collage from Getty Images sources</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Text saying: Uncommon Courses, from The Conversation" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499014/original/file-20221205-17-kcwec8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499014/original/file-20221205-17-kcwec8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499014/original/file-20221205-17-kcwec8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499014/original/file-20221205-17-kcwec8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499014/original/file-20221205-17-kcwec8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499014/original/file-20221205-17-kcwec8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499014/original/file-20221205-17-kcwec8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/topics/uncommon-courses-130908">Uncommon Courses</a> is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.</em> </p>
<h2>Title of course</h2>
<p>“Psychology of Pseudoscience”</p>
<h2>What prompted the idea for the course?</h2>
<p>While teaching a course on research methods at the United States Air Force Academy, I concluded that the course needed a bigger emphasis on broad scientific reasoning skills.</p>
<p>So I incorporated material about the difference between science – the <a href="https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/">systematic process of evidence-based inquiry</a> – and <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo15996988.html">pseudoscience</a>, which is the promotion of unreliable scientific claims as if they are more reliable than other explanations. </p>
<p>I wanted to understand why people promote claims that conflict with science. I jumped at the opportunity to develop this type of course at SUNY Cortland.</p>
<h2>What does the course explore?</h2>
<p>We look at some of the common scientific reasoning failures that pseudoscience exploits. These include <a href="https://aiptcomics.com/2021/02/01/stormtroopers-science-evidence-anecdotes/">hand-picking anecdotes</a> to support a belief, <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/">developing a set of beliefs</a> that explain every possible outcome, <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/2017/05/vaccines-autism-and-the-promotion-of-irrelevant-research-a-science-pseudosc/">promoting irrelevant research</a>, <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo15996988.html">ignoring contradictory information</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356">believing in unsubstantiated conpiracies</a>.</p>
<p>We particularly highlight <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480">motivated reasoning</a>, the tendency for people to process information in a way that helps them confirm what they already want to believe. For example, someone might accept scientific consensus about cancer treatments but question it with regard to vaccines – even though both are supported by strong scientific evidence and expert consensus. </p>
<p>We also review <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141">group polarization</a>, in which people develop more extreme positions after interacting with similarly minded group members.</p>
<p>Some of the topics we examine include the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/yes-flat-earthers-really-do-exist/">flat-Earth</a> belief, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/denying-evolution-9780878936595?cc=us&lang=en&">creationism</a>, <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/2002/03/bigfoot-at-50-evaluating-a-half-century-of-bigfoot-evidence/">Bigfoot and other cryptozoology ideas</a>, <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/02/the-great-australian-psychic-prediction-project-pondering-the-published-predictions-of-prominent-psychics/">psychic ability</a>, <a href="https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf">conversion therapy</a>, <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/vaccines-and-your-child/9780231153072">anti-vaccination</a>, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/318419a0">astrology</a>, <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/2003/01/amityville-the-horror-of-it-all/">ghosts</a> and <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-madhouse-effect/9780231177863">climate change denial</a>.</p>
<p>Students complete two papers to reinforce their knowledge. First, students develop their own bogus scientific claims and a corresponding plan to convince people that their claims are legitimate. Allowing students to invent and promote novel forms of pseudoscience gives them a safe context in which to examine specious scientific arguments.</p>
<p>Second, students review old issues of <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/">Skeptical Inquirer</a>, the leading national magazine about science and critical thinking, to summarize the topics that were being addressed at that time. Students also dive more deeply into a specific topic like unexplained cattle mutilations or the Bermuda Triangle. Then they write a paper based on an <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/2022/12/on-the-origin-of-skeptical-inquirer/">example I recently published</a> in Skeptical Inquirer. I’m hopeful that future column installments will include students’ work.</p>
<h2>Why is this course relevant now?</h2>
<p>The internet has provided pseudoscience communities with the unprecedented ability to promote their false claims.</p>
<p>For instance, flat-Earthers have <a href="https://theconversation.com/i-watched-hundreds-of-flat-earth-videos-to-learn-how-conspiracy-theories-spread-and-what-it-could-mean-for-fighting-disinformation-184589">relied on YouTube</a> to create doubt about Earth as a globe. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization uses Facebook to support Bigfoot belief. These platforms take advantage of people’s tendency to believe material posted by their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.620764">friends</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9219-6">authoritative-sounding sources</a>.</p>
<p>This course is also relevant now because the consequences of poor scientific reasoning are so significant. People who believe these sorts of false claims risk their own health and that of the planet, by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17430-6">avoiding helpful, safe vaccines</a> or <a href="http://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-madhouse-effect/9780231177863">useful discussions about the problems presented by climate change</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s a critical lesson from the course?</h2>
<p>It’s important for students to understand that <a href="https://centerforinquiry.org/video/why-were-all-susceptible-to-pseudoscience-craig-foster/">reasonable, intelligent people promote pseudoscience</a>. When people encounter pseudoscience they don’t personally believe, they sometimes conclude that the pseudoscience supporters are unintelligent or mentally unwell. This type of explanation is shortsighted. </p>
<p>Everyday people are drawn into believing pseudoscience because they have limited cognitive resources and they use cognitive strategies, like relying on anecdotes, that can lead to erroneous belief. Human scientific reasoning is particularly flawed when humans really <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/44085270">want to reach a particular conclusion</a>.</p>
<p>Belief in pseudoscience also develops out of social interactions. Friends and family members commonly share their reasons for believing in creationism, ghosts, fad diets and so forth. This type of social influence goes into overdrive when people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211050323">join communities that collectively promote pseudoscience</a>. I have attended Bigfoot and flat-Earth conferences. These conferences create powerful social experiences, because so many friendly people are available to explain that Bigfoot is alive or the Earth is flat, both of which are, clearly, false.</p>
<h2>What materials does the course feature?</h2>
<p>The “Defining Pseudoscience and Science” chapter by Sven Ove Hansson in “<a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo15996988.html">Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem</a>” sets up what I call the psychological puzzle of pseudoscience: How do people convince themselves and others that an unreliable scientific claim is actually reliable?</p>
<p>We also have guest speakers, including philosophy of science scholar <a href="https://massimopigliucci.org/">Massimo Pigliucci</a>, journalist and folklorist <a href="http://benjaminradford.com/">Ben Radford</a>, exposer of psychics <a href="https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/susan-gerbic-back-on-tour/">Susan Gerbic</a>, a local Bigfoot enthusiast, and Janyce Boynton, who discussed <a href="https://www.facilitatedcommunication.org">facilitated communication</a>, a discredited communication technique in which some people physically assist nonverbal people with their communication, for example, by guiding their hands as they type.</p>
<h2>What will the course prepare students to do?</h2>
<p>The course prepares students to identify dubious scientific claims. In so doing, they should <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9513-3">become less vulnerable</a> to being drawn into pseudoscience. The course also enhances familiarity with specific forms of pseudoscience. I expect climate change denial, anti-vaccination and creationism to remain major points of contention in American society for decades. Educated people should understand the discussions that occur around these kind of social problems.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Foster is affiliated with facilitatedcommunication.org.
Anything else to declare: I am a Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Fellow.</span></em></p>A university course teaches students why people believe false and evidence-starved claims, to show them how to determine what’s accurate and real and what’s neither.Craig A. Foster, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, State University of New York CortlandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1845892022-06-27T12:23:32Z2022-06-27T12:23:32ZI watched hundreds of flat-Earth videos to learn how conspiracy theories spread – and what it could mean for fighting disinformation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469831/original/file-20220620-16-dhw8r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=80%2C34%2C7588%2C3196&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/earth-sunset-europe-north-africa-space-1720476160">Darryl Fonseka / Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Around the world, and against all scientific evidence, a segment of the population believes that Earth’s round shape is either an unproven theory or an elaborate hoax. Polls by <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2018/04/02/most-flat-earthers-consider-themselves-religious">YouGov America</a> in 2018 and <a href="https://www.fdu.edu/news/fdu-poll-2020-election-conspiracies-more-likely-to-embrace-bigfoot-flat-earth/">FDU</a> in 2022 found that as many as 11% of Americans believe the Earth might be flat.</p>
<p>While it is tempting to dismiss “flat Earthers” as mildly amusing, we ignore their arguments at our peril. <a href="https://www.fdu.edu/news/fdu-poll-2020-election-conspiracies-more-likely-to-embrace-bigfoot-flat-earth/">Polling</a> shows that there is an overlap between conspiracy theories, some of which can act as gateways for radicalisation. <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/QAnon">QAnon</a> and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream">great replacement theory</a>, for example, have proved deadly <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/matthew-taylor-coleman-qanon-children-killing-1239151/">more</a> <a href="https://www.csis.org/blogs/examining-extremism/examining-extremism-qanon">than</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/06/buffalo-shooting-replacement-theory-violence-whites-blacks-terrorism/">once</a>.</p>
<p>By studying how flat Earthers talk about their beliefs, we can learn how they make their arguments engaging to their audience, and in turn, learn what makes disinformation spread online.</p>
<p>In a recent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156221103852">study</a>, my colleague Tomas Nilsson at Linnaeus University and I analysed hundreds of YouTube videos in which people argue that the Earth is flat. We paid attention to their debating techniques to understand the structure of their arguments and how they make them appear rational.</p>
<p>One strategy they use is to take sides in existing debates. People who are deeply attached to one side of a culture war are likely to wield any and all arguments (including truths, half-truths and opinions), if it helps them win. People invest their identity into the group and are more willing to believe fellow allies rather than perceived opponents – a phenomenon that sociologists call <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2018-0565">neo-tribalism</a>. </p>
<p>The problem arises when people internalise disinformation as part of their identity. While news articles can be fact-checked, personal beliefs cannot. When conspiracy theories are part of someone’s value system or worldview, it is difficult to challenge them.</p>
<h2>The three themes of the flat-Earth theory</h2>
<p>In analysing these videos, we observed that flat Earthers take advantage of ongoing culture wars by inserting their own arguments into the logic of, primarily, three main debates. These debates are longstanding and can be very personal for participants on either side. </p>
<p>First is the debate about the existence of God, which goes back to antiquity, and is built on reason, rather than observation. People already debate atheism v faith, evolution v creationism, and Big Bang v intelligent design. What flat Earthers do is set up their argument within the longstanding struggle of the Christian right, by arguing that atheists use pseudoscience – evolution, the Big Bang and round Earth – to sway people away from God.</p>
<p>A common flat Earther refrain that taps into religious beliefs is that God can inhabit the heavens above us physically only in a flat plane, not a sphere. As one flat Earther put it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They invented the Big Bang to deny that God created everything, and they invented evolution to convince you that He cares more about monkeys than about you … they invented the round Earth because God cannot be above you if He is also below you, and they invented an infinite universe, to make you believe that God is far away from you.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3OmgIg4BrGg?wmode=transparent&start=33" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The second theme is a conspiracy theory that sees ordinary people stand against a ruling elite of corrupt politicians and celebrities. Knowledge is power, and this theory argues that those in power conspire to keep knowledge for themselves by distorting the basic nature of reality. The message is that people are easily controlled if they believe what they are told rather than their own eyes. Indeed, the Earth does appear flat to the naked eye. Flat Earthers see themselves as part of a community of unsung heroes, fighting against the tyranny of an elite who make the public disbelieve what they see.</p>
<p>The third theme is based on the “<a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3091874">freethinking</a>” argument, which dates back to the spirited debate about the presence or absence of God in the text of the US constitution. This secularist view argues that rational people should not believe authority or dogma – instead, they should trust only their own reason and experience. Freethinkers distrust experts who use “book knowledge” or “nonsense math” that laypeople cannot replicate. Flat Earthers often use personal observations to test whether the Earth is round, especially through homemade experiments. They see themselves as the visionaries and scientists of yesteryear, like a modern-day Galileo. </p>
<h2>Possible counterarguments</h2>
<p>Countering disinformation on social media is difficult when people internalise it as a personal belief. Fact-checking can be ineffective and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2">backfire</a>, because disinformation becomes a personal opinion or value. </p>
<p>Responding to flat Earthers (or other conspiracy theorists) requires understanding the logic that makes their arguments persuasive. For example, if you know that they find arguments from authority unconvincing, then selecting a government scientist as a spokesperson for a counterargument may be ineffective. Instead, it may be more appealing to propose a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaPa4esJJx4&t=237s">homemade experiment</a> that anyone can replicate.</p>
<p>If you can identify the rationality behind their specific beliefs, then a counterargument can engage that logic. Insiders of the group are often key to this – only a spokesperson with impeccable credentials as a devout Christian can say that you do not need the flat-Earth beliefs to remain true to your faith. </p>
<p>Overall, beliefs like flat-Earth theory, QAnon and the great replacement theory grow because they appeal to a sense of group identity under attack. Even far-fetched misinformation and conspiracies can seem rational if they fit into existing grievances. Since debates on social media require only posting content, participants create a feedback loop that solidifies disinformation as points of view that cannot be fact-checked.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184589/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carlos Diaz Ruiz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Why do people believe conspiracies like flat-Earth theory? An expert explains.Carlos Diaz Ruiz, Assistant Professor, Hanken School of EconomicsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1321582020-03-09T12:22:22Z2020-03-09T12:22:22ZHow technology can combat the rising tide of fake science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318753/original/file-20200304-66112-vybpt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=63%2C13%2C1178%2C840&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A crop circle in Switzerland.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CropCircleW.jpg">Jabberocky/Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science gets a lot of respect these days. Unfortunately, it’s also getting a lot of competition from misinformation. Seven in 10 Americans think the benefits from science outweigh the harms, and nine in 10 think science and technology will create <a href="https://nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/highlights">more opportunities for future generations</a>. Scientists have made dramatic progress in understanding the universe and the mechanisms of biology, and advances in computation benefit all fields of science. </p>
<p>On the other hand, Americans are surrounded by a rising tide of misinformation and fake science. Take climate change. Scientists are in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024">almost complete agreement that people are the primary cause of global warming</a>. Yet polls show that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02406-9">a third of the public disagrees</a> with this conclusion.</p>
<p>In my <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OrRLRQ4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">30 years of studying and promoting scientific literacy</a>, I’ve found that college educated adults have large holes in their basic science knowledge and they’re disconcertingly <a href="https://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/17315">susceptible to superstition and beliefs that aren’t based on any evidence</a>. One way to counter this is to make it easier for people to detect pseudoscience online. To this end, my lab at the University of Arizona has developed an artificial intelligence-based pseudoscience detector that we plan to freely release as a web browser extension and smart phone app.</p>
<h2>Americans’ predilection for fake science</h2>
<p>Americans are prone to superstition and paranormal beliefs. An annual survey done by sociologists at Chapman University finds that <a href="https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2018/10/16/paranormal-america-2018/">more than half believe in spirits and the existence of ancient civilizations</a> like Atlantis, and more than a third think that aliens have visited the Earth in the past or are visiting now. Over 75% hold multiple paranormal beliefs. The survey shows that these numbers have increased in recent years.</p>
<p><iframe id="IbP7D" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/IbP7D/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Widespread belief in astrology is a pet peeve of my colleagues in astronomy. It’s long had a foothold in the popular culture through horoscopes in newspapers and magazines <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/01/the-new-age-of-astrology/550034/">but currently it’s booming</a>. Belief is strong even among the most educated. My surveys of college undergraduates show that three-quarters of them <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/AER2010040">think that astrology is very or “sort of” scientific</a> and only half of science majors recognize it as not at all scientific.</p>
<p>Allan Mazur, a sociologist at Syracuse University, has delved into <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203788967">the nature of irrational belief systems</a>, their cultural roots, and their political impact. Conspiracy theories are, by definition, resistant to evidence or data that might prove them false. Some are at least amusing. Adherents of the flat Earth theory turn back the clock on two millennia of scientific progress. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/16424622/reddit-conspiracy-theories-memes-irony-flat-earth">Interest in this bizarre idea has surged in the past five years</a>, spurred by social media influencers and the echo chamber nature of web sites like Reddit. As with climate change denial, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47279253">many come to this belief through YouTube videos</a>.</p>
<p>However, the consequences of fake science are no laughing matter. In matters of health and climate change, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190161">misinformation can be a matter of life and death</a>. Over a 90-day period spanning December, January and February, people liked, shared and commented on posts from sites containing <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/coronavirus-misinformation-is-increasing-newsguard-finds/">false or misleading information about COVID-19</a> 142 times more than they did information from the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization. </p>
<p>Combating fake science is an urgent priority. In a world that’s increasingly dependent on science and technology, civic society can only function when the electorate is well informed. </p>
<p>Educators must roll up their sleeves and do a better job of teaching critical thinking to young people. However, the problem goes beyond the classroom. The internet is the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report">first source of science information</a> for 80% of people ages 18 to 24. </p>
<p>One study found that a majority of a random sample of 200 YouTube videos on climate change <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036">denied that humans were responsible or claimed that it was a conspiracy</a>. The videos peddling conspiracy theories got the most views. Another study found that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/21/climate-tweets-twitter-bots-analysis">a quarter of all tweets on climate were generated by bots</a> and they preferentially amplified messages from climate change deniers.</p>
<h2>Technology to the rescue?</h2>
<p>The recent success of machine learning and AI in <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00648">detecting fake news</a> points the way to detecting fake science online. The key is <a href="https://www.explainthatstuff.com/introduction-to-neural-networks.html">neural net</a> technology. Neural nets are loosely modeled on the human brain. They consist of many interconnected computer processors that identify meaningful patterns in data like words and images. Neural nets already permeate everyday life, particularly in <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02709">natural language processing</a> systems like Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s language translation capability.</p>
<p>At the University of Arizona, we have trained neural nets on handpicked popular articles about climate change and biological evolution, and the neural nets are 90% successful in distinguishing wheat from chaff. With a quick scan of a site, our neural net can tell if its content is scientifically sound or climate-denial junk. After more refinement and testing we hope to have neural nets that can work across all domains of science. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/318416/original/file-20200303-66064-2dk56c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=591&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Neural net technology under development at the University of Arizona will flag science websites with a color code indicating their reliability (left). A smartphone app version will gamify the process of declaring science articles real or fake (right).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Impey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The goal is a web browser extension that would detect when the user is looking at science content and deduce whether or not it’s real or fake. If it’s misinformation, the tool will suggest a reliable web site on that topic. My colleagues and I also plan to gamify the interface with a smart phone app that will let people compete with their friends and relatives to detect fake science. Data from the best of these participants will be used to help train the neural net.</p>
<p>Sniffing out fake science should be easier than sniffing out fake news in general, because subjective opinion plays a minimal role in legitimate science, which is characterized by evidence, logic and verification. Experts can readily distinguish legitimate science from conspiracy theories and arguments motivated by ideology, which means machine learning systems can be trained to, as well. </p>
<p>“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” These words of <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2010/11/moynihan-letters-201011">Daniel Patrick Moynihan</a>, advisor to four presidents, could be the mantra for those trying to keep science from being drowned by misinformation.</p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/132158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Impey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The internet has allowed pseudoscience to flourish. Artificial intelligence could help steer people away from the bad information.Chris Impey, University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy, University of ArizonaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1219052019-08-15T12:32:48Z2019-08-15T12:32:48ZFlat-Earther ‘Mad’ Mike Hughes prepares to launch himself to space – here’s how far he’s likely to get<p>The self-declared daredevil and <a href="https://theconversation.com/i-watched-an-entire-flat-earth-convention-for-my-research-heres-what-i-learnt-95887">Flat Earther</a> <a href="https://madmikehughes.com">“Mad” Mike Hughes</a> is preparing for another launch in his homemade, steam-powered rocket in the Californian desert. His final goal is to reach the edge of space, but how likely is he to succeed and see that the Earth is actually spherical?</p>
<p>Hughes’ first rocket launch was in 2014, and since then he has taken off several times in his homemade machines – reaching an altitude of 572 metres at most. His adventures have <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/25/man-injured-immediately-after-launching-himself-1875ft-into-the-air-to-prove-earth-is-flat-7415293/">led to a number of injuries</a>, yet he is still determined to keep going. His latest attempt was scheduled for August 11, but was <a href="https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/05/flat_earther_rocketeer_failure/">once again</a> aborted after a fault with the rocket was discovered. He will retry <a href="https://www.space.com/craigslist-water-heater-mad-rocket-launch.html">on August 17</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-superstition-and-why-people-believe-in-the-unbelievable-97043">The science of superstition – and why people believe in the unbelievable</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Hughes believes that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/you-dont-need-to-build-a-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-isnt-flat-heres-the-simple-science-88106">Earth is flat</a> and that he can prove that with his rocket travels (he has been <a href="https://the-infinite-plane-society.myshopify.com/blogs/infinite-plane-society-blog/about-the-infinite-plane-society">given money by the Infinity Plane Society</a>). He is willing to go out and literally risk his life to prove what he believes. </p>
<p>But whether he will get anywhere is a different matter. So let’s take a look at his rocket to see what potential pitfalls or successes he could have.</p>
<h2>Rocket launch basics</h2>
<p>The mathematics behind the speed a rocket launch can achieve was developed in the 1890s by a Russian schoolteacher called <a href="http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2012/10/14/a-man-and-an-equation/">Konstantin Tsiolkovsky</a>. <a href="https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktpow.html">His equation</a> calculates a speed or velocity change based on how much of the rocket’s total mass is fuel – the more fuel you have the faster you can go – and how fast it can burn this fuel. In fact, the equation is still used to this day. </p>
<p>Orbital flight <a href="https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/rocket/rktrflght.html">is a combination</a> of altitude (vertical height) and horizontal velocity. To reach an orbit around the Earth you need two things. The first is to be travelling <a href="https://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/vectors/sat.cfm">fast enough horizontally</a> that you reach the curvature of the Earth before gravity pulls you to the ground. You also want as little atmosphere as possible, otherwise the enormous drag force from the air will both <a href="https://www.khanacademy.org/computing/computer-programming/programming-natural-simulations/programming-forces/a/air-and-fluid-resistance">reduce your speed</a> and <a href="https://www.space.com/3113-meteors-meteor-showers-science.html">heat your object up</a>.</p>
<p>In the 1950s, the aerospace engineer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n">Theodore Von Karman</a> decided that the point where the atmosphere thins so much that normal aeronautical flight (requiring atmosphere) is impossible is at 100 kilometres up (62 miles). He dubbed this line, the edge of space, the Karman line. And to orbit at this height would require a horizontal speed of 7.8 kilometres per second, which is about 17,500 miles per hour. </p>
<p>To reach these speeds, you have to use very <a href="http://www.braeunig.us/space/propel.htm">specific fuels</a> and engine shapes, relying on the combustion of solids or liquids. As the fuel is heated and turned to gas it takes up a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/ideal-gas-law">larger volume</a>, and as such is pushed out the back of the engine, generating thrust. The more gas you can produce at higher temperatures, the faster your rocket goes. </p>
<h2>Limitations and challenges</h2>
<p>Hughes intends to use water as the fuel itself. The problem with water is that it does not boil quickly – it has a <a href="https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/2%3A_The_Chemical_Foundation_of_Life/2.2%3A_Water/2.2C%3A_Water%E2%80%99s_High_Heat_Capacity">high specific heat capacity</a>. This means it essentially takes too much energy to turn it into steam quickly enough to be able to generate a high thrust.</p>
<p>While we don’t know the specific dimensions for Hughes’ rocket, we can use <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/flat-earther-mike-hughes-homemade-rocket-1453535">his description</a> of “95-100 gallons of water (360-379 litres), superheated”, “leaving the rocket at the speed of sound” and weighing “around 1,800 pounds” to calculate his potential maximum altitude using Tsiolkovsky’s rocket equation.</p>
<p>This requires us to know initial velocity (which is 330 metres per second), initial mass (which is 816 kilograms) and a final mass as all the water and steam are gone (this is 437 kilograms). The equation then gives a speed change of 206 metres per second. This means the maximum height he can reach is just over 2 kilometres, assuming he launches straight up (this is based on basic equations of motion, ignoring air resistance).</p>
<p>This is a very respectable height to reach on a homemade engine. But <a href="https://www.nps.gov/seki/planyourvisit/whitney.htm">Mount Whitney</a>, which is close to Hughes’ launch site in California, has a peak of almost 4.5 kilometres (2.8 miles). Neither altitude is anywhere close to the edge of space. It is not even high enough to see the curvature of the Earth, which requires a <a href="https://www.howitworksdaily.com/how-high-do-you-have-to-go-to-see-the-curvature-of-the-earth/">minimum height of about 10 kilometres (6.2 miles)</a>.</p>
<p>Despite this, Hughes has stated he wants funding to enable him to <a href="https://www.phillyvoice.com/flat-earth-movements-rocket-man-will-share-details-antarctica-launch-vegas-conference/">reach the Karman line</a> in his next flight. Reversing our calculations, we can estimate that he would need a minimum velocity change of 1.4 kilometres per second (0.9 miles per second) to do that, and this would require his rocket to hold at least 29,000 litres of water (7,500 US gallons). </p>
<p>This is no easy feat as it would require a fuel tank with a volume of 30 cubic metres, which is roughly the carrying capacity of two <a href="https://www.parkers.co.uk/vans-pickups/ford/transit/2014-dimensions/">long wheel base vans</a>. The increased size of the fuel tank and supporting structure would then increase the final weight, which in turn would require even more fuel. The engineering required to contain the internal pressure of this water and turn it instantly into steam may be very difficult. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/flat-earthers-vs-climate-change-sceptics-why-conspiracy-theorists-keep-contradicting-each-other-96060">Flat Earthers vs climate change sceptics: why conspiracy theorists keep contradicting each other</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While Hughes’ current launch attempt may well succeed, the chances of a rocket with a 30 cubic metre fuel tank full of water taking off is close to impossible. At least he would avoid the catastrophe of the fuel <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/1/12748752/spacex-launch-site-explosion-cape-canaveral-florida">exploding on the launch pad</a>, which is a concern for more serious rocket launches. Commercial ventures such the <a href="https://theconversation.com/falcon-heavy-spacex-stages-an-amazing-launch-but-what-about-the-environmental-impact-91423">Falcon rockets</a>, and <a href="https://www.blueorigin.com/">Blue Origin</a> have put a lot of money into research and if they could use something as cheap as water to launch then they would do so. </p>
<p>Ultimately, Hughes will not make it anywhere near high enough to see the curvature of the Earth, but I suspect the adrenaline rush will more than make up for it. Personally, I wish him all the best for his next flight. I may not agree with his beliefs, his politics or his distrust of science, but I do applaud his spirit and attitude.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121905/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Whittaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An equation from the 1890s can help us work out how high Hughes can actually reach with his homemade rocket.Ian Whittaker, Lecturer in Physics, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1018492018-08-22T11:40:51Z2018-08-22T11:40:51ZThere’s a psychological link between conspiracy theories and creationism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233111/original/file-20180822-149481-1hlvcdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-businessman-holding-earth-planet-hand-201424946">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ask a three-year-old why they think it’s raining, and she may say “because the flowers are thirsty”. Her brother might also tell you that trees have leaves to provide shade for people and animals. These are instances of teleological thinking, the idea that things came into being and exist for a purpose.</p>
<p>Teleological explanations for natural phenomena are <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.013">rejected by scientists</a> because these explanations appeal to intentions. But trees do not grow leaves and rain clouds do not drop water with an outcome in mind. It rains because of <a href="https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/learning/precipitation/rain/why-does-it-rain">physics</a>. And those physics would apply equally if there were no flowers or any other life on the planet.</p>
<p>Take teleology one step further, and you get Donald Trump, <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385">who thinks</a> that global warming is an invention of the Chinese to make US manufacturing non-competitive. There is growing <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2">evidence</a> that indulging in conspiracy theories predisposes people to reject scientific findings, from <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457686">climate change</a> to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637">vaccinations</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10461-009-9641-z">AIDS</a>. And researchers have now found that teleological thinking also links <a href="https://theconversation.com/anthill-7-on-belief-69448">beliefs in conspiracy theories</a> and creationism.</p>
<p>Teleological and conspiratorial thought share a number of features in common. Core to both ways of thinking is the act of giving things a purpose. Flowers supposedly produce delightful perfume in order to attract pollinators, and climate scientists supposedly invent a <a href="https://wndbooks.wnd.com/the-greatest-hoax-2/">hoax known as climate change</a> at the behest of the “world government” or George Soros.</p>
<p>It is this emphasis on assigning purpose that makes teleological thinking and conspiratorial thought so attractive. In everyday life, assigning intentions often makes perfect sense. If someone asks you why your daughter turned on the TV, it may be perfectly accurate and appropriate to reply with “because her favourite show is on now”. But giving such a presumed purpose to trees, clouds and other natural phenomenon can produce false understanding.</p>
<p>There is much evidence that people are enthralled by teleological thinking and have difficulty leaving it behind. One study showed that even scientists, when put under time pressure, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030399">lapse into teleological thinking</a> that they would reject if given more time, being more likely to endorse statements such as “germs mutate in order to become drug resistant” (though still far less likely to do so than a community sample of participants). Another study found that when students are put in a situation in which they lack control, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845">they readily resort</a> to perceiving conspiracies and developing superstitions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232939/original/file-20180821-149466-d18kc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232939/original/file-20180821-149466-d18kc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232939/original/file-20180821-149466-d18kc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232939/original/file-20180821-149466-d18kc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232939/original/file-20180821-149466-d18kc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232939/original/file-20180821-149466-d18kc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232939/original/file-20180821-149466-d18kc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not all conspiracy theorists are so easy to spot.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/group-people-foil-on-their-heads-785406115?src=oRlExw41CIOEaY0sTmsC2Q-1-1">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new study from the University of Fribourg, published in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.072">Current Biology</a>, provides evidence that links teleological thinking, conspiracy theories and the rejection of scientific facts about evolution. Perhaps more than any other well-established scientific finding, evolution has been in constant combat with misperceptions arising from teleological thinking. In fact, teleological reasoning is so pervasive that there is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12052-017-0070-6">much evidence</a> that it impairs people’s ability to learn the concept of natural selection in the first place.</p>
<p>It is tempting to think that giraffes needed long necks to reach leaves at <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12052-017-0070-6">the top of the trees</a>, and so evolution provided them with those long necks. This teleological notion is in conflict with the fact that natural selection had no such goal in mind. There was natural variation in the population and those animals with longer necks had greater reproductive success in an environment with tall trees. So the giraffe evolved and longer necks became standard.</p>
<p>The Fribourg researchers conducted three studies with more than 2,000 participants overall. Echoing <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajpa.22910">previous studies</a>, the findings showed that teleological thinking was associated with the rejection of evolution and the acceptance of its pseudo-scientific alternative, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/creationism_1.shtml">creationism</a>. But the researchers also showed a strong association between creationism and conspiracism.</p>
<p>People who believed in creationism also tended to believe in conspiracy theories, regardless of their religious or political beliefs. Conspiracism was also associated with teleological thinking. This confirms that seeking purpose in random events, such as the death of Princess Diana in a drink-driving accident, or natural phenomena such as rain clouds or the necks of giraffes, reflects a common underlying way of thinking.</p>
<h2>Why we deny science</h2>
<p>These new results mesh well with other research that has linked conspiracism to science denial across so many domains. Conventionally, the use of conspiracy theories to reject scientific accounts <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436">has been explained</a> as a way to avoid accepting an inconvenient truth.</p>
<p>A chain smoker who is confronted with frightening information about his habit might find it easier to accuse the medical establishment of being an <a href="https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=pyfy0144">oligopolistic cartel</a> than to quit smoking. Likewise, people who feel threatened by climate mitigation, for example because it might raise the cost of petrol, may be more willing to think that Al Gore created a hoax than to accept 150 years of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Molecular_physics_of_radiant_heat">research into basic physics</a>.</p>
<p>The new study takes the role of conspiratorial thought in creationism a step further. It suggests that creationism itself could be seen as a belief system involving the ultimate conspiracy theory: the purposeful creation of all things.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101849/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Royal Society</span></em></p>New research shows how ‘teleological thinking’ means that conspiracists are more likely to also be creationists.Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/960602018-05-21T10:29:26Z2018-05-21T10:29:26ZFlat Earthers vs climate change sceptics: why conspiracy theorists keep contradicting each other<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218823/original/file-20180514-100722-1yxg7ip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Would a flat Earth suffer from climate change?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTUyNjMzNTg5NywiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfNzQzODg2MDAxIiwiayI6InBob3RvLzc0Mzg4NjAwMS9tZWRpdW0uanBnIiwibSI6MSwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCJ1ZFA1dnJTY0pURzk1S3NjeVAxeEN5Umd2MnMiXQ%2Fshutterstock_743886001.jpg&pi=33421636&m=743886001&src=fHQ8WjqJKwZo5_BO-7s-2g-1-0">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Flat Earthism and the idea that human activity is not responsible for climate change are two of the most prevalent conspiracy theories today. Both have been increasing in popularity since the late 20th century. Currently, 16% of the US population say they <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk">doubt the scientifically established shape of the Earth</a>, while 40% think that human-induced climate change <a href="http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-328">is a hoax</a>. But proponents of one of these theories are not necessarily proponents of the other, even though both are often motivated by a common <a href="http://theconversation.com/i-watched-an-entire-flat-earth-convention-for-my-research-heres-what-i-learnt-95887">mistrust of authority</a>. In fact, they regularly contradict one another.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.flatearthconventionuk.co.uk">Flat Earthers</a>, for example, tend to disbelieve organisations such as NASA on the shape of Antarctica – or indeed, that there is a southern hemisphere at all. Yet the president of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton, is quite convinced – presumably at least in part thanks to information from NASA – that climate change is happening and espouses a fairly <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/26/proud-moment-for-warmists-president-of-real-flat-earth-society-believes-in-the-global-warming-hoax/">conventional view on the subject</a>. </p>
<p>Former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci (dismissed by president Trump after ten days in office), meanwhile, believes that the Earth is in fact round, but does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, as he made clear <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/14/a-trump-team-member-just-compared-climate-science-to-the-flat-earth-theory/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.79710fb8a398">in an interview with CNN</a>. </p>
<p>Such <a href="https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/221/Argument-by-Selective-Reading">selective reasoning</a> is common among conspiracy theorists who often lack consistency with one other. Despite this, the media, celebrities and even <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-23057369/obama-no-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society">politicians regularly make broad comparisons between</a> climate change scepticism, Flat Earthism and other conspiracy theories. </p>
<h2>Fabricated data?</h2>
<p>In the field of global climate change, scientific bodies often are accused, even by those in power, of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG8gLt4GChg">fabricating data</a>. But such criticism is often deeply flawed. Take those sceptics, for example, who believe that climate change is occurring, but because of natural – rather than man-made – causes. If one argues that data has been fabricated to show warming where there is none, one cannot then also imply that warming is occurring after all, but naturally. Either there is warming or there is not. Similarly, Flat Earthers who state that images showing Earth’s curvature are due to the <a href="https://flatearth.ws/fisheye">shape of a camera lens</a>, themselves believe in a disc which by definition has a curved edge.</p>
<p>Indeed, one of the few commonalities which exist between all major conspiracy theories is that somehow scientists and governments are involved in a grand conspiracy for <a href="http://austinpowers.wikia.com/wiki/Dr._Evil">reasons unknown</a>. </p>
<p>A major part of the scientific anthropogenic climate change argument is that there is an increase in temperature extremes in both <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/arctic-warming-wet-summers-cold-snow-global-climate-change-a8136261.html">summer and winter</a>. Evidently, a Flat Earth model cannot support this; in fact, the most accepted <a href="http://fe2018.com/about/about-us/">Flat Earth model</a>, which maintains that the sun rotates in a non-variable circular orbit over the flat disk, implies that there should be no seasons at all, let alone multi-decadal seasonal extremes due to climate change. Nevertheless, <a href="https://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/">to quote Shenton</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Climate change is a process which has been ongoing since (the) beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in worldwide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this instance, the president of the Flat Earth Society <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19082">is correct</a>. Anthropogenic climate change sceptics, on the other hand, are often willing to accept the science behind the Earth’s <a href="https://realclimatescience.com/west-antarctic-collapse-scam/">natural cycles</a>, which they blame – instead of human activity – for the world’s weather woes. Clearly, we again find an implicit difference of opinion between a Flat Earth model, and a non-anthropogenic climate change one.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218824/original/file-20180514-100709-fcvi22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/218824/original/file-20180514-100709-fcvi22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218824/original/file-20180514-100709-fcvi22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218824/original/file-20180514-100709-fcvi22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218824/original/file-20180514-100709-fcvi22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218824/original/file-20180514-100709-fcvi22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/218824/original/file-20180514-100709-fcvi22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Climate change: a ‘global’ problem.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.shutterstock.com%2Fgatekeeper%2FW3siZSI6MTUyNjMzNjAwOCwiYyI6Il9waG90b19zZXNzaW9uX2lkIiwiZGMiOiJpZGxfNjk2OTcwNTUyIiwiayI6InBob3RvLzY5Njk3MDU1Mi9tZWRpdW0uanBnIiwibSI6MSwiZCI6InNodXR0ZXJzdG9jay1tZWRpYSJ9LCJNT3QvQVJTM2lGRzhiUjFadlAvWmZPU1NaNVkiXQ%2Fshutterstock_696970552.jpg&pi=33421636&m=696970552&src=BvJV0SSLjofuBYpJYk12lQ-1-10">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is also clear that many climate change sceptics believe in the (approximately) spherical Earth, even if only subconsciously, by their use of scientifically accepted global maps when <a href="http://glitch.news/2017-02-13-fake-science-global-warming-world-map-data-largely-faked-by-noaa-climate-change-fraud-rapidly-unraveling.html">discussing data</a> – not to mention when calling it <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/265895292191248385">“global” warming</a>. </p>
<h2>And what about aliens?</h2>
<p>If governments and scientists are so untrustworthy and steeped in corruption, then why would one believe them on any issue? Where does the line of trust actually fall? Why would a person who mistrusts governments and scientists on the shape of the Earth, not hold the same politicians and scientific organisations similarly bogus on the issue of climate change? Or alien abductions, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-42195511">chem trails</a>, or anything else?</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/i-watched-an-entire-flat-earth-convention-for-my-research-heres-what-i-learnt-95887">I watched an entire Flat Earth Convention for my research – here's what I learnt</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<hr>
<p>But the problem isn’t likely to go away any time soon. The US has the highest number of believers in both flat-Earthism and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/where-in-the-world-is-climate-denial-most-prevalent">anthropogenic climate change scepticism</a>, and the UK is not far behind. The US also has a <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pg5zqg/a-guide-to-the-climate-change-deniers-in-congress">high number (more than 50%)</a> of senior political figures who deny man-made climate change, not to mention a democratically elected leader vocally believing the same. There are also numerous well-known celebrities who question the established <a href="http://hermoments.com/celebrities-think-earth-is-flat/">shape of our planet</a>.</p>
<p>While of course scientists can play the blame game, it could be that the scientific method itself is a major limiting factor in communicating results with the public. Science is not just a body of knowledge, but a method of critical thinking. </p>
<p>Scientists, by necessity, have to communicate their findings in a certain rigid way focusing on probabilities, certainty values and confidence intervals. These can appear dry or baffling to the public. But by providing more easily <a href="https://hbr.org/2015/02/why-debunking-myths-about-vaccines-hasnt-convinced-dubious-parents">understandable narratives</a> we can make scientific discussions with the public more productive. </p>
<p>In today’s complex world of social media narratives, the engagement of scientists with the public is more crucial than ever. Thankfully, current <a href="https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/do-engagement/funding/stem-funding">funding</a> for public engagement training and activities is accessible to scientists with a passion for communication and conversation, enabling them to communicate facts rather than “fake news”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96060/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Conspiracy theorists have an à la carte attitude to data and trust, so what can scientists do about it?Gareth Dorrian, Post Doctoral Research Associate in Space Science, Nottingham Trent UniversityIan Whittaker, Lecturer, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/958872018-05-02T10:50:22Z2018-05-02T10:50:22ZI watched an entire Flat Earth Convention for my research – here’s what I learnt<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217224/original/file-20180502-153873-1yycjez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=754%2C13%2C1711%2C1064&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/abstract-polka-dot-world-map-343406624">dsom/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Speakers recently flew in from around (or perhaps, across?) the earth for a three-day event held in Birmingham: the UK’s first ever public <a href="https://www.flatearthconventionuk.co.uk/">Flat Earth Convention</a>. It was well attended, and wasn’t just three days of speeches and YouTube clips (though, granted, there was a lot of this). There was also a lot of team-building, networking, debating, workshops – and scientific experiments. </p>
<p>Yes, flat earthers do seem to place a lot of emphasis and priority on scientific methods and, in particular, on observable facts. The weekend in no small part revolved around discussing and debating science, with lots of time spent running, planning, and reporting on the latest set of flat earth experiments and models. Indeed, as one presenter noted early on, flat earthers try to “look for multiple, verifiable evidence” and advised attendees to “always do your own research and accept you might be wrong”.</p>
<p>While flat earthers seem to trust and support scientific methods, what they don’t trust is scientists, and the established relationships between “power” and “knowledge”. This relationship between power and knowledge has long been theorised by sociologists. By exploring this relationship, we can begin to understand why there is a swelling resurgence of flat earthers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160">How to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Power and knowledge</h2>
<p>Let me begin by stating quickly that I’m not really interested in discussing <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-reason-with-flat-earthers-it-may-not-help-though-95160">if the earth if flat or not</a> (for the record, I’m happily a “globe earther”) – and I’m not seeking to mock or denigrate this community. What’s important here is not necessarily whether they believe the earth is flat or not, but instead what their resurgence and public conventions tell us about science and knowledge in the 21st century. </p>
<p>Multiple competing models were suggested throughout the weekend, including “classic” flat earth, domes, ice walls, diamonds, puddles with multiple worlds inside, and even the earth as the inside of a giant cosmic egg. The level of discussion however often did not revolve around the models on offer, but on broader issues of attitudes towards existing structures of knowledge, and the institutions that supported and presented these models.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iigUBjf4-pc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The cosmic egg theory explained.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Flat earthers are not the first group to be sceptical of existing power structures and their tight grasps on knowledge. This viewpoint is somewhat typified by the work of Michel Foucault, a famous and heavily influential 20th century philosopher who made a career of studying those on the fringes of society to understand what they could tell us about everyday life.</p>
<p>He is well known, amongst many other things, for looking at the close relationship <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish">between power and knowledge</a>. He suggested that knowledge is created and used in a way that reinforces the claims to legitimacy of those in power. At the same time, those in power control what is considered to be correct and incorrect knowledge. According to Foucault, there is therefore an intimate and interlinked relationship between power and knowledge. </p>
<p>At the time Foucault was writing on the topic, the control of power and knowledge had moved away from religious institutions, who previously held a very singular hold over knowledge and morality, and was instead beginning to move towards a network of scientific institutions, media monopolies, legal courts, and bureaucratised governments. Foucault argued that these institutions work to maintain their claims to legitimacy by controlling knowledge.</p>
<h2>Ahead of the curve?</h2>
<p>In the 21st century, we are witnessing another important shift in both power and knowledge due to factors that include the increased public platforms afforded by social media. Knowledge is no longer centrally controlled and – <a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/08/30/had-enough-of-experts-anti-intellectualism-is-linked-to-voters-support-for-movements-that-are-skeptical-of-expertise/">as has been pointed out</a> in the wake of Brexit – the age of the expert may be passing. Now, everybody has the power to create and share content. When Michael Gove, a leading proponent of Brexit, proclaimed: “I think the people of this country have had enough of experts”, it would seem that he, in many ways, meant it. </p>
<p>It is also clear that we’re seeing increased polarisation in society, as we continue to drift away from agreed singular narratives and move into camps around shared interests. Recent <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2016/10/14/in-presidential-contest-voters-say-basic-facts-not-just-policies-are-in-dispute/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=16-10-14%20panel%20election%20report&org=982&lvl=100&ite=413&lea=66827&ctr=0&par=1&trk=">PEW research</a> suggests, for example, that 80% of voters who backed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election – and 81% of Trump voters – believe the two sides are unable to agree on basic facts.</p>
<p>Despite early claims, from as far back as HG Well’s “<a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8078973/hg-wells-wikipedia">world brain</a>” essays in 1936, that a worldwide shared resource of knowledge such as the internet would create peace, harmony and a common interpretation of reality, it appears that quite the opposite has happened. With the increased voice afforded by social media, knowledge has been increasingly decentralised, and competing narratives have emerged.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217233/original/file-20180502-153900-1ptisbm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">HG Wells’ plan for a world encyclopedia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Scottbot</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This was something of a reoccurring theme throughout the weekend, and was especially apparent when four flat earthers debated three physics PhD students. A particular point of contention occurred when one of the physicists pleaded with the audience to avoid trusting YouTube and bloggers. The audience and the panel of flat earthers took exception to this, noting that “now we’ve got the internet and mass communication … we’re not reliant on what the mainstream are telling us in newspapers, we can decide for ourselves”. It was readily apparent that the flat earthers were keen to separate knowledge from scientific institutions.</p>
<h2>Flat earthers and populism</h2>
<p>At the same time as scientific claims to knowledge and power are being undermined, some power structures are decoupling themselves from scientific knowledge, moving towards a kind of populist politics that are increasingly sceptical of knowledge. This has, in recent years, manifested itself in extreme ways – through such things as public politicians <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227">showing support for Pizzagate</a> or Trump’s suggestions that <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ted-cruz-jfk-files_us_59f20e61e4b07fdc5fbcaf6e">Ted Cruz’s father shot JFK</a>. </p>
<p>But this can also be seen in more subtle and insidious form in the way in which Brexit, for example, was campaigned for in terms of gut feelings and emotions rather than expert statistics and predictions. Science is increasingly facing problems with its ability to communicate ideas publicly, a problem that politicians, and flat earthers, are able to circumvent with moves towards populism.</p>
<p>Again, this theme occurred throughout the weekend. Flat earthers were encouraged to trust “poetry, freedom, passion, vividness, creativity, and yearning” over the more clinical regurgitation of established theories and facts. Attendees were told that “hope changes everything”, and warned against blindly trusting what they were told. This is a narrative echoed by some of the celebrities who have used their power to back flat earth beliefs, such as the musician B.O.B, who <a href="https://twitter.com/bobatl/status/691469676119982080">tweeted</a>: “Don’t believe what I say, research what I say.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"691411463051804676"}"></div></p>
<p>In many ways, a public meeting of flat earthers is a product and sign of our time; a reflection of our increasing distrust in scientific institutions, and the moves by power-holding institutions towards populism and emotions. In much the same way that Foucault reflected on what social outcasts could reveal about our social systems, there is a lot flat earthers can reveal to us about the current changing relationship between power and knowledge. And judging by the success of this UK event – and the large conventions planned in Canada and America this year – it seems the flat earth is going to be around for a while yet.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95887/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harry T Dyer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A public meeting of flat earthers is a product and sign of our times.Harry T Dyer, Lecturer in Education, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/951602018-04-25T12:05:55Z2018-04-25T12:05:55ZHow to reason with flat earthers (it may not help though)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215883/original/file-20180423-75123-a6xrih.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">SpaceX</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Thinking that the earth might be flat appears to have <a href="https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-21">grown in popularity</a> in recent years. Indeed, <a href="https://www.flatearthconventionuk.co.uk/">flat earthers are gathering</a> for their annual conference this year in Birmingham, just two miles from my own university.</p>
<p>But the earth isn’t flat. Unsurprisingly, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4">this isn’t hard to prove</a>. But as scads of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Law8Cw9kE">YouTube videos demonstrate</a>, these proofs fail to convince everyone. A glance at the comments show there’s still vitriolic disagreement in some quarters.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5-Law8Cw9kE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Philosophy can explain why. Consider <a href="https://youtu.be/8BQs0R72r9s?t=2505">one, standard, flat earth line</a>: “Can <em>you</em> prove the world is round?” Maybe you point to the (<a href="https://gizmodo.com/5854771/the-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-earth-image-of-all-time">often artificially assembled</a>) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble">photos of Earth from space</a>. Or possibly you rely on the testimony of astronauts. The flat earther knocks it all back. The standard of proof is higher, they say. <em>You</em> haven’t been to space. <em>You</em> haven’t seen the round earth.</p>
<p>Perhaps you then start to appeal to science. But unless you’re unusual, you probably don’t know all of the details of the scientific proofs – is it something to do with <a href="https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11560.0">ships and horizons</a>? <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXqGF0VsOsw">Or eclipses</a>? And even if you know the details, unless you’ve indulged existing flat earth literature you are unlikely – right here, right now – to be able to cogently, concisely and comprehensively respond to the lengthy rebuttals flat earthers will give to each and every scientific proof. </p>
<p>You could double down. Getting <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRYF2HYRN2ILwUoyLQ5TAdA">knee deep in the vloggersphere</a>, you might learn the details of the scientific proofs as well as painstakingly spelling out each error in every flat earther’s rebuttal.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qkRnJutL5ko?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>I recommend against doing that. I recommend letting philosophy do the work. I recommend “<a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/">epistemic contextualism</a>”. To understand what this is, we first must understand a familiar idea: context shift. Consider the sentence “I’m tall”. Surrounded by five year olds at a rollercoaster park, the sentence is true – after all, I can get on all the rides and they can’t. But at the try-outs for the Harlem Globetrotters, my measly 5’11" won’t cut it. So in that context, the sentence is false. Tallness is contextually sensitive. And it makes no sense to further ask whether I’m <em>really</em> tall or not. It only makes sense given a particular context.</p>
<p>Epistemic contextualists say that knowledge is the same. Imagine you’re transferring £10 to your daughter. You know her bank details. You tap them in. You send the money. But now imagine you’re transferring £50,000. Doubt sets in. Do you really know her bank details? Are you <em>sure</em>? Sensibly, you phone her to double check. The contextualist says that in the first case, you know her bank details. In the second case, even though nothing about <em>you</em> has changed, the <em>context</em> has. And in that case, you <em>don’t</em> know the details.</p>
<h2>Moving the goalposts</h2>
<p>That said, I claim the flat earther is doing a “Phoebe”. In one episode from Friends, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rvPP-IgYJk">Phoebe and Ross argue about evolution</a>. Ross piles on the evidence thick and fast. Finally, Phoebe loses her temper. Can he be so unbelievably arrogant, she asks, that he can’t admit the slightest chance that he <em>might</em> be wrong? Sheepishly, Ross agrees that there might be a chance. Suddenly, Phoebe has him – Ross’s admission destroys his worldview. He’s a palaeontologist and, having admitted he can’t be sure about evolution, how can he “face the other science guys”?</p>
<p>Phoebe has (humorously) shifted context. Ross’s proof starts off relying on fossils in museums, books and articles on evolutionary biology, and so on. But Phoebe moves him to a “sceptical context” in which if there’s a hint of doubt about something – any possibility that you might be wrong – then you don’t know it at all.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"978947592372609024"}"></div></p>
<p>Philosophers are well acquainted with these sceptical contexts. For instance, you <em>could</em> be <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Reality_(Red_Dwarf)">plugged into the Matrix</a> and, if you were, then every belief you had would be false. By bringing your attention to that, I put us in a sceptical context within which we don’t know much of anything. Most people, though, ignore this possibility – most people assume themselves <em>not</em> to be in a sceptical context.</p>
<p>It’s now easy to see how Ross can face the other science guys. He <em>does</em> know evolution is true in most everyday contexts. It is only in Phoebe’s weird context that Ross does not know evolution is true. </p>
<h2>Where flat earthers go wrong</h2>
<p>Flat earthers are pulling the same trick. They’re right that you don’t <em>know</em> the earth is round. But they’re only right in a context where <a href="https://www.wired.com/2014/11/marsha-ivins/">testimonies of hundreds are disregarded</a>, where widely accepted facts among the scientific community don’t count, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMR8VrkSTrI">where photographic evidence is inadmissible</a>, and so on.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"730078048503107584"}"></div></p>
<p>The flat earther’s argument is framed in a context where you can’t set aside the possibility that <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npxAxglUnKI">there’s a pervading global conspiracy</a> – albeit one which somehow intermittently leaves glaring errors which give them away. In that context, you don’t know the earth is round. But in that context, nobody knows much at all and so this conclusion is simply unsurprising.</p>
<p>In the more everyday contexts that we care about, we can rely on testimony. We can rely on the fact that every educated physicist, cartographer and geographer never pauses to think the earth might be flat. And we are <em>correct</em> to rely on these things. If it was incorrect, we’d never get treated at hospitals – for in a context where <a href="https://youtu.be/EDQzIcxOuxs?t=1062">we can’t trust the</a> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVHYCr3FTSc">established laws of physics</a>, how could we trust the judgements of medical science?</p>
<p>So do you know whether the earth is round? It turns out it depends on context. But in most regular contexts then, yes, you do. And that’s even though I doubt most people could prove it, right here and now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95160/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nikk Effingham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>All the proofs in the world won’t change a convinced flat earther’s mind.Nikk Effingham, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/881062017-11-27T11:58:34Z2017-11-27T11:58:34ZYou don’t need to build a rocket to prove the Earth isn’t flat – here’s the simple science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196479/original/file-20171127-2009-4ay18h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Could 2,000 years of belief be wrong? Are we in fact living on a disc rather than a globe? One believer from the Flat Earth Society is determined to find out. <a href="http://madmikehughes.com/">“Mad” Mike Hughes</a> is all set to build his own rocket to see for himself that the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/flat-earth-rocket-man-take-off-time-date-mad-mike-hughes-theory-a8068486.html">Earth is flat</a>.</p>
<p>For the last 50 years, we’ve been able to view pictures of the Earth from space, which might seem like all the proof you need to see that our planet is in fact round. But the awareness of how easily images can be doctored and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories-and-how-to-change-their-minds-82514">growth of internet conspiracy theories</a> appears to have fuelled a resurgence of belief in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/flat-wrong-the-misunderstood-history-of-flat-earth-theories-53808">flat Earth</a>.</p>
<p>At the same time, there’s a lack of understanding of the science that has long been used to demonstrate that we live on a globe, without the need to leave it. I wish Hughes well with his endeavour, as he has at least been willing to try and prove his theory. Perhaps if more people really could see for themselves the evidence, we might be able to reverse this worrying trend. A good place to start would be by making sure children have the chance to try out simple experiments in school.</p>
<p>One of the best documented methods for determining the Earth’s roundness was first performed (to our knowledge) by the <a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm">ancient Greeks</a>. This was achieved by comparing the shadows of sticks in different locations. When the sun was directly overhead in one place, the stick there cast no shadow. At the same time in a city around 500 miles north, the stick there did cast a shadow.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196480/original/file-20171127-2077-nuclva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196480/original/file-20171127-2077-nuclva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196480/original/file-20171127-2077-nuclva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196480/original/file-20171127-2077-nuclva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196480/original/file-20171127-2077-nuclva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196480/original/file-20171127-2077-nuclva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/196480/original/file-20171127-2077-nuclva.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cast no shadow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If the Earth were flat then both sticks should show the same shadow (or lack of) because they would be positioned at the same angle towards the sun. The ancient Greeks found the shadows were different because the Earth was curved and so the sticks were at different angles. They then used the difference in these angles to calculate the circumference of the Earth. They managed to get it to within 10% of the true value – not bad for around 250 BC.</p>
<p>Another piece of evidence for a globe is the difference between the night skies in the northern and southern hemispheres. The view is completely different because the Earth beneath you is pointing in a different direction. If the Earth were flat, the view should be the same. This can be made even easier by simply comparing when it is night and day in each country.</p>
<p>You can observe the planets as well. They all rotate, and watching over the course of a few days gives a clear picture they are spherical rather than flat. The chance that most of the planets are spherical but the Earth is flat seems very unlikely.</p>
<h2>Fake science</h2>
<p>But when science experiments are performed incorrectly they can appear to give the opposite result. If they are shared through social media, these false ideas can be spread quickly with no one to point out their flaws. One common example is the Bedford Level experiment, a form of which was first carried out in 1838 and used to “prove” the <a href="https://archive.org/details/zeteticastronom00rowbgoog">Earth was flat</a> for over 30 years before an explanation was found.</p>
<p>This experiment involved placing a marker at a set height at either end of a canal about six miles long. If the Earth is round, then one marker should appear lower than the other when viewed at the same time through a telescope because the furthest marker would have fallen away with the curvature of the Earth. But it was reported that the markers are the same height, suggesting the Earth is actually flat. Modern day Flat Earth theorists <a href="http://www.debate.org/debates/Scientific-evidence-overwellmingly-supports-a-flat-earth/1/">still quote</a> this experiment. </p>
<p>The problem is this doesn’t take into account the optical effect of the air over the intervening water, which bends or “refracts” the light as it travels from the marker to the telescope and makes it look like they are the same height. The solution is to use multiple markers along the length of the canal which, when observed, all appear to be at <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/001581a0">different heights</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ur4N9iQZ93U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Perhaps the most impressive experiment that <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-dorset-40706868/yewstock-school-in-sturminster-newton-launches-balloon-into-near-space">even schools</a> can do today is to send a camera up in a high-altitude balloon. The footage will show that from a high-enough vantage point you can see the curvature of the Earth. This is what Mike Hughes will find if he ever makes his rocket work.</p>
<p>Ultimately, arguing on the internet is not the best way forward for any scientific endeavour. We need to provide the means for people to test these theories themselves and to understand the results they get.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88106/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Whittaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Easy experiments that show the Earth is round.Ian Whittaker, Lecturer, Nottingham Trent UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/538002016-01-28T22:56:24Z2016-01-28T22:56:24ZWhy would anyone believe the Earth is flat?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109464/original/image-20160128-1022-1heg616.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Earth as seen from space -- looks curved from up there.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasamarshall/17211208796/">Flickr/NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Belief in a flat Earth seems a bit like the attempt to <a href="http://www.who.int/features/qa/07/en/">eradicate polio</a> – just when you think it’s gone, a pocket of resistance appears. But the “flat Earthers” have always been with us; it’s just that they usually operate under the radar of public awareness.</p>
<p>Now the rapper <a href="http://www.bobatl.com/">B.o.B</a> has given the idea <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/27/bob-stephen-neil-degrasse-tyson-flat-to-fact-flatline-rap-beef">prominence</a> through <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/25/bob-rapper-flat-earth-twitter">his tweets</a> and the release of his single <a href="http://genius.com/Bob-flatline-lyrics">Flatline</a>, in which he not only says the Earth is flat, but mixes in a slew of other weird and wonderful ideas.</p>
<p>These include the notions that the world is controlled by lizard people, that certain celebrities are cloned, that Freemasons manipulate our lives, that the sun revolves around the Earth and that the Illuminati control the new world order. Not bad for one song.</p>
<p>Even ignoring that these ideas are inconsistent (are we run by lizards, the Freemansons or the Illuminati?), what would inspire such a plethora of delusions? The answer is both straightforward, in that it is reasonably clear in psychological terms, and problematic, in that it can be hard to fix.</p>
<h2>Making our own narratives</h2>
<p>Humans are, above all things, story-telling animals. It is impossible to live our lives without constructing narratives. I could not present a word pair such as (cage, bird) without you joining them in a narrative or image. Same with (guitar, hand) or (river, bridge). Even when we read seemingly unrelated word pairs such as (pensioner, wardrobe), our brains actively try to match the two (and you’re still doing it). </p>
<p>The stories that define us as a culture, a group or as a species are often complex and multifaceted. They speak of many things, including creation, nature, community and progress.</p>
<p>We create stories for two reasons. The first is to provide explanatory power, to make causal sense of the world around us and help navigate through the landscapes of our lives. The second reason is to give us meaning and purpose.</p>
<p>Not only do we understand our world through stories, we understand our place in it. The stories can be religious, cultural or scientific, but serve the same purpose. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109437/original/image-20160128-26769-19khz11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Our stories make sense of the world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/theelders/4150592288">Flickr/The Elders</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scientific narratives</h2>
<p>In science, our stories are developed over time and build on the work of others. The narrative of evolution, for example, provides breathtaking explanatory power. Without it, the world is simply a kaleidoscope of form and colour. With it, each organism has function and purpose. </p>
<p>As the Ukrainian-American geneticist and evolutionist <a href="http://www.britannica.com/biography/Theodosius-Dobzhansky">Theodosius Dobzhansky</a> said in his famous <a href="http://www.phil.vt.edu/Burian/NothingInBiolChFina.pdf">essay</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Through evolution, we have developed an understanding of how we fit into the scheme of life, and the vast and deep history of our planet. For many of us, this knowledge provides meaning and an appreciation of the fact of our existence. </p>
<p>Similarly, the story of our solar system’s formation is rich and compelling, and includes the explanation for why the Earth is, in fact, more or less spherical.</p>
<p>So why would someone reject all this?</p>
<p>One reason might be that accepting mainstream scientific findings necessitates rejecting an existing narrative. Such is the case for evolution within fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible. </p>
<p>For the literally religious, accepting evolution necessitates rejecting their world view. It is not about weighing scientific evidence, it is about maintaining the coherence and integrity of their narrative. The desperate and unsuccessful search for evidence to contradict evolution by young Earth creationists is a manifestation of this attempt at ideological purification. </p>
<p>Another reason to reject scientific narratives is that we feel we do not have meaning within them, or we do not belong to the community that created them. </p>
<p>As I’ve said <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ironclad-logic-of-conspiracy-theories-and-how-to-break-it-31684">elsewhere</a> concerning conspiracy theories, in a world in which there is so much knowledge, and in which we individually hold so little of it, it is sometimes difficult to see ourselves as significant.</p>
<p>What’s more, science, it turns out, <a href="http://www.sciencegnus.com/Science%20Is%20Hard.pdf">is hard</a>. So if we want to own this narrative, it might take a bit of work.</p>
<h2>Freedom from rationality</h2>
<p>It is therefore tempting to find a way of thinking about the world that both dismisses the necessity of coming to grips with science, and restores us to a privileged social position.</p>
<p>Rejecting science and embracing an alternative view, such as the Earth being flat, moves the individual from the periphery of knowledge and understanding to a privileged position among those who know the “truth”. </p>
<p>In BoB’s <a href="http://genius.com/Bob-flatline-lyrics">lyrics</a>, he calls himself “free thinking”. In this phrasing we see a glimpse of the warrant he gives himself to reject science, considering it a “cult”.</p>
<p>He appeals instead to his common sense to establish that the Earth must be flat. The appeal to common sense is a characteristic way of claiming to be rational while denying the collective rationality of the scientific community (and a typical argument in <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP158008&dsid=DS2">climate denial</a>).</p>
<p>It’s also about recapturing a feeling of independence and control. We know from <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3161/abstract?campaign=wolearlyview">research</a> that there is a correlation between feeling a lack of control in your life and belief in conspiracy theories.</p>
<p>If we can rise above the tide of mainstream thinking and find a place from which we can hold a unique and controversial view, we might hope to be more significant and find a purpose to which we can lend our talents.</p>
<h2>Coming back from the edge</h2>
<p>So how could we engage someone with such beliefs, with view to changing their minds? That’s no easy task, but two things are important.</p>
<p>The first is to have both the facts and their means of verification at hand – after all, you need something to point to. Sometimes, if the narrative is weak or in tension, that might do the job.</p>
<p>The second thing, because <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-facts-alone-dont-change-minds-in-our-big-public-debates-25094">facts are often not enough</a>, is to understand the style and depth of the narrative an individual has developed, and the reasons it’s developed as it has. It’s only from that point that progress can be made against otherwise intractable opposition to collective wisdom. </p>
<p>But why bother? Why not let rappers rap, preachers preach and deniers deny? It might seem that we are just dealing with a fringe on the edge of the rational (or literal) world. But, of course, in the case of things such as vaccination and climate change, the consequences of inaction against these views are potentially damaging. </p>
<p>Either way, we should at least stand up for knowledge that has been hard won through collective endeavours over generations and individual lives dedicated to its pursuit. </p>
<p>Because if all views are equal then all views are worthless, and that’s something none of us should accept.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53800/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Ellerton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It might seem crazy to believe the world is flat. But for some people it reinforces a narrative that gives their lives meaning.Peter Ellerton, Lecturer in Critical Thinking, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/538082016-01-28T19:20:15Z2016-01-28T19:20:15ZFlat wrong: the misunderstood history of flat Earth theories<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109462/original/image-20160128-1022-1u3ccpd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"> A 'flat-Earth' map drawn by Orlando Ferguson in 1893. This rendering of a flat Earth still gets some truck today.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map_edit.jpg">Wikimedia/Orlando Ferguson</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For most people, being described as a “flat Earther” is an insult. The idea of the Earth being flat is considered not only wrong, but a <em>model</em> of wrongness, the gold standard of being incorrect about something. </p>
<p>This being so, oddly enough, most people described pejoratively as “flat Earthers” do not actually <em>believe</em> that the Earth is flat. “Flat Earther” is simply a scientifically seasoned variation of “idiot”.</p>
<p>For a recent example, US President Barack Obama recently <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23057369">expressed impatience</a> with the persistent objections put forward by climate change deniers by saying: “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.” </p>
<p>In a subsequent move that one can read as either very fortunate or very unfortunate, the <em>real</em> Flat Earth Society issued a <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/">statement</a> in support the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. </p>
<p>What do we do, then, when someone actually <em>does</em> believe that the Earth is flat, as the American rapper <a href="http://www.bobatl.com/">B.o.B</a> <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/25/bob-rapper-flat-earth-twitter">expressed recently</a>? The usual path seems to be blocked; it’s difficult to insult someone with a term that they themselves happily adopt. </p>
<h2>Edge of the world</h2>
<p>But what exactly is a “flat Earth theory”? In fact, there never has been anything called “the flat Earth theory”. Different cultures at different times have posited a staggeringly diverse array of worldviews which cannot easily be summed up with the phrase “flat Earth.” Nor is the idea of a flat Earth something that is exclusive to the Western world.</p>
<p>Even the most cursory historical survey shows that the idea that the Earth is flat has been a notion shared by an extraordinarily wide range of cultures and tied to vastly different metaphysical systems and cosmologies. </p>
<p>It was a common belief in ancient Greece, as well as in India, China and in a wide range of indigenous or “pre-state” cultures. Both the poets Homer and Hesiod described a flat Earth. This was maintained by Thales, considered by many one of the first philosophers, Lucretius, an avowed materialist, as well as Democritus, the founder of atomic theory. </p>
<p>The ancient Greek conception, in turn, has some parallels with that of early Egyptian and Mesopotamian thought, with both thinking that the Earth was a large disc surrounded by a gigantic body of water. The ancient Chinese were also virtually unanimous in their view of the Earth’s flatness, although – in this system – the heavens were spherical and the Earth was square. </p>
<p>A number of ancient Indian conceptions, common – with some degree of variation – to ancient Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, tie their cosmography to botanical images, with the earth being comprised of four continents surrounding a mountain, akin to the way petals encircle the bud of a flower. Ancient Norse thought postulated a circular flat Earth surrounded by a sea inhabited by a giant serpent. </p>
<p>Others, like the Mountain Arapesh people of Papua New Guinea, envisage a world which ends at the horizon, the place where giant clouds gather. But even where commonalities exist across these traditions, vastly different metaphysical and cosmological narratives are at stake. </p>
<p>And, to complicate matters, to these we must add cultures and intellectual traditions for whom the shape of Earth is of no interest whatsoever. Many tribal or pre-state societies, for instance, have little concern for what might be considered cosmography.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/109463/original/image-20160128-1025-rjqq1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=539&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Does it look flat?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">DonkeyHotey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Turtles all the way down</h2>
<p>However, from at least the 6th century BCE, the theory of the flat Earth began to fall out of favour. By the time we get to Aristotle in the 4th century BCE, the idea of a spherical Earth is commonplace, at least among the educated classes. And by the 1st Century BCE it is considered an uncontroversial truth. Having said that, the theory of a flat Earth has continued as a minor tradition in thought, like a handful of theories in science, such as Lamarckianism and vitalism.</p>
<p>Despite the historical tide having long turned, the mid 20th century saw the establishment of the <a href="http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/">Flat Earth Society</a>, started in 1956 by <a href="http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-society/history-and-mission">Samuel Shenton</a>, whose work was continued by the retired aircraft mechanic, Charles K. Johnson, in 1972. </p>
<p>From California (where else?), Johnson functioned as president for The International Flat Earth Society. As its spokesman, he made a series of claims that have now become widespread outside the flat Earth community: the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that the correct view of the world is the traditional Christian one of the earth being flat.</p>
<p>Johnson, interestingly enough, didn’t get only his cosmology wrong, he got his history and theology wrong as well. Orthodox Christian thinkers, at least since 5th century on, have supported the idea of a spherical Earth, from Bede through to Thomas Aquinas. </p>
<p>Indeed, as the University of California historian <a href="http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/home.html">Jeffrey Burton Russell</a> has argued, very few educated people in the West after the 3rd century BCE thought that the world was flat. This goes directly against the common belief that most people in medieval times believed the Earth was flat.</p>
<h2>How unenlightened they were</h2>
<p>But, if the flat Earth serves as a kind if myth or fantasy for those who believe in it, there are also myths <em>about</em> the flat Earth that are just as widespread. </p>
<p>One of the most widely propagated myths in the contemporary world is the belief that Columbus was advised by the Catholic Church to abandon his journey on the basis that he risked falling off the edge of the world.</p>
<p>It’s source is the 19th century writer, <a href="http://www.britannica.com/biography/Washington-Irving">Washington Irving</a>, author of other rigorous historical accounts such as The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle.</p>
<p>What this suggests is that we are sometimes overly keen to enlist the past – or our version of the past – in our attempts to feel better about how enlightened we are and how benighted were our predecessors. </p>
<p>That, of course, does not mean that nobody believed the Earth was flat in the middle ages; nor does it entail that nobody believes it today. Mohammed Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram, famously claimed to not believe in a whole series of modern ideas which he though were contrary to Islam – including the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8172270.stm">spherical shape of the Earth</a>.</p>
<p>If there is anything truly astounding about BoB’s improbable cosmographical musings, it’s that the battle between him and Neil deGrasse Tyson is, at this stage at least, being carried out only through the medium of rap. That could be a historical first for cosmography.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53808/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Fleming does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We often hear that most people throughout history believed the world was flat. But that’s not entirely true.Chris Fleming, Senior Lecturer in Cultural and Social Analysis, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.