Why We Should Listen to Flat Earth Believers (Even Though They're Totally Wrong)
gizmodo.co.uk
gizmodo.co.uk
Their motivations are varied. Some of them do it to make some sort of epistemological point, others do it because arguing for something that isn't true requires a form of creativity they find rewarding. Others do it because they like to get people riled up (it's amazing how easily some people can get riled up over other people being wrong about the shape of the earth, even when the reality that the flat earther isn't being sincere is staring them right in the face). Others still probably have other motivations. Probably only a very small portion of them actually believe what they say.
I'd almost lend some credence to that, if some of them weren't building their own rockets and launching themselves into the air to try to prove flat earth: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a19587128/sel...
Let them crowd fund a small manufacturing hub out there.
Flat earthers know damn well that hot air balloons exist. Even if you're in the camp of thinking flat earthers are dumb morons with IQs too low to tie their own shoelaces, it should still be apparent to all of them that hot air balloons are cheaper and safer than hydrogen peroxide rockets. But a balloon ride isn't much of a stunt, a rocket ride is.
What I found most disconcerting about that story was the number of comments throughout the internet expressing regret that Hughes survived. Saying that "Darwin failed", wishing he'd have died for the crime of being wrong about the shape of the earth. Some joking no doubt, but others saying it with enough vitriol to persuade me.
1 - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1940161208330904
There is little double that some do, but I think you underestimate just how stupid people can be in general. E.g. just using the normal distribution for IQ (mean 100, stddev 15), 9% are below 80.
Now, to be clear: I just want to stretch your imagination. There are tons of people out there who just aren't that bright. Ok fine.
The problem is people who are a nasty combination of low IQ, ignorant, and militant.
Basically, you have people who could be cured of flat Eartherism by going out just one whole night and watching the stars rotate around the pole, just one trip to the ocean with binoculars to watch a ship disappear over the horizon, just one full day of measuring the shadows of the sun and doing trig, yet they refuse and instead sit inside and watch fucking dumbass YouTube videos made by other fucking dumbasses and then will literally get in your face and irate about something they clearly have zero actual direct knowledge of. It really makes you wonder wtf.
But then again, what are you gonna do? I tell them to predict eclipses, but so far no one has taken me up on it.
Somebody who's fucking with you would refuse to do this and instead laugh at you for being so naive as to not know binoculars have circular lenses, or some other nonsense excuse more creative than that. Refusal to engage in honest investigation of the truth doesn't prove somebody is unintelligent. Furthermore the incontrovertible existence of unintelligent people doesn't prove that flattists must be unintelligent people. It's very easy for a reasonably smart person to pretend to be very dumb because they consider it entertaining (or for other motivations.)
As for sincere expressions of anger, I've seen it more often from round-earthers than flat earthers. Phrases like "fucking dumbass YouTube videos" betray some strong emotion that I suspect (but cannot prove!) you aren't faking.
>But then again, what are you gonna do? I tell them to predict eclipses
Did you know the Babylonians could do this without a heliocentric model of the solar system? I suppose you could say that a working knowledge of EAE would be a demonstration of reasonable intelligence, but the lack of such knowledge could hardly be considered proof of lacking intelligence. Most intelligent people have never bothered to learn how to use Babylonian astronomy omens.
A flat earth can also spin.
[1] Obviously, the sky does not rotate, the Earth rotates.
You would see this from anywhere on the disk, which would not be a problem if you never traveled south of the equator (decent assumption for most of the population).
I'm just putting on the flat-earther's hat for fun.
Has anyone found effective methods to counter the above traits? While not engaging is usually the best option it is sad and concerning when it is a family member so I don’t feel like ignoring it is the best approach.
Some of the people who believe these things are not stupid at all, and while it may seem smart to you to just accept what you hear from the professionals, it actually doesn't require any intelligence to follow what they say.
I've been working with professionals a lot, and I know they are just repeating what they are told. Every profession is like that. Experts even more so, since otherwise they lose credibility and are not experts anymore.
The human mind is extremely susceptible to various fallacies such as confirmation bias. Usually this is beneficial, but often it can be very harmful.
Chickenpox is not a horrible disease that ought to be vaccinated against. Pro-vaxxers don't realize that they're missing the big picture too: we can't vaccinate against everything, and it's just as important to address all the conditions that result in children developing an especially bad case of chicken pox.
Medicine is a fickle field. The tragedy is that modern medical practitioners think they now know what they're doing. Otto Warburg was probably always right about cancer [0], but conventional doctors are still working with the 'kill all the cancer cells' theories of cancer treatment.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/magazine/warburg-effect-a...
> I've been working with professionals a lot, and I know they are just repeating what they are told. Every profession is like that. Experts even more so, since otherwise they lose credibility and are not experts anymore.
There's a human tendency to trust "received wisdom". I think Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is about the phenomenon...
Professionals who build things that are expected to just work (bridge engineers) are a little different than professionals who try real hard to help their patients (certain medical specialties).
I don't think it's productive to label anyone stupid, but a complete inability to properly weigh probability is damning to claims of intelligence. For instance, the scope of the conspiracy needed to fake the moon landings is completely implausible. And when you consider the incentive the USSR would have had in exposing it as a hoax, it goes from implausible to literally impossible. Similar arguments apply to the safety of vaccines, flat Earth, and other absurd hoaxes.
This is considerably different to the repetition of "common knowledge" which ultimately turns out to be some kind of urban legend.
In the case of anti-vaxxers (most of whom are probably sincere,) when you become upset or even infuriated with them it cements their beliefs. They interpret your anger as evidence of their position being right. Therefore if you want to change their minds, the first thing you must master is your own emotions. Hiding your anger isn't enough, because people always leak information about their emotional state. You need to find a new frame of mind that allows you to have discussions with people who are wrong without becoming upset. I know this is difficult with antivaxxers since their beliefs put children in harms way, but it's necessary.
A zealot is eager for the arguments, to test the strength of their beliefs. If they still believe after all the facts, data, experience, it's scored a victory (dopamine rush).
I can't quickly refind her original post. Will update later if I can.
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-n...
If the threat of diseases we've eliminated returning isn't enough, then perhaps only the diseases themselves will do it.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/rabies/diagno...
Maybe the vaccine can still stimulate you or immune system faster than the virus can take hold?
The rabies vaccine is part of rabies treatment, but it's used in the window between being exposed to rabies and developing rabies. People who've been exposed but haven't been previously vaccinated also get Rabies Immune Globulin, which provides immediate antibodies until the body can respond to the vaccine by actively producing antibodies of its own.
CDC: "Rabies vaccine is given to people at high risk of rabies to protect them if they are exposed. It can also prevent the disease if it is given to a person after they have been exposed."[1]
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/rabies.h...
That is like saying people should not be driving cars since there is someone dying of a car accident every day. And that a person is to blame if they took their family out for a joy ride, and ends up in an accident killing them all.
That is also like expecting someone never to ride in a car, because someone dear to them were killed in an accident...
Some 25 years ago, I learned from a homeless man on the streets of Vancouver a curious hypothesis: AIDS probably originates from those damn condoms themselves! The molecules of the latex rubber mutated into the virus, you see ...
I've started asking for a commitment up front whenever a disagreement comes up. So for flat Earthers, before bringing up any other points or discussing anything, just ask what would convince them to revise their views.
I sometimes preface this with saying that I think it's important to be honest about how certain I am about some position, and to state upfront what would prove me wrong. So I would be convinced that the Earth was flat if I ran an experiment, like a high flying balloon, that then showed 0 curvature in the Earth at high altitude where we'd expect some curvature. Then ask them the same question.
Now you're both on the same page, and if you're committed to resolving this question, you have a way to move forward and see who's right and you can do each step together to ensure no tampering, etc. And as a bonus, they get to learn exactly how science is done.
Can we usually anticipate precisely what would and wouldn't convince us of a proposition? Particularly when it involves making a judgment call based on imperfect evidence?
After doing this two ore more times, you can easily make the argument that it's just simpler to abandon that model, or to suggest that perhaps they believe what they do not for empirical reasons, but for some other reasons (like being part of a community they like).
Well, if you want to have a constructive dialog with them, getting angry isn't so great. In this sort of situation the content of the argument isn't what's at issue; far more important is the motivation for holding the position. The conversation should be directed towards contextualizing the position in the person's life. Your goal in the discussion shouldn't be to convince the other person, but to understand what they're thinking and why.
If you mistrust scientists, why the hell would you be convinced by scientific evidence? The productive discussion is to be had about the mistrust. You can't just ignore their mistrust and argue as if scientific evidence is admissible: that is assuming your position in order to justify your position. I'd also like to emphasize that unless you're the one doing the research, and even then, there is scarcely ever concrete evidence available. Especially for something like vaccines where the positive benefit is the absence of something negative, evidence is quite indirect. You and I trust science. I believe that trust is justified but it is something that needs justification.
An important thing about people is that they are more rational in the small, especially about concrete aspects of their day-to-day lives, than they are in the large, especially when it comes to lofty concepts and abstract models of the world that they don't have direct experience with. Conspiracy theories are dangerous because they allow the latter irrationality to negatively impact the former rationality. However, turning it around, reasoning from a person's concrete life and point of view towards understanding abstractions such as institutions of medicine, science, politics, etc. is a way to counter conspiracy theories.
So, tl;dr; it's not that rational arguments can't win such people over, it's that you have to start from a different viewpoint and you have to use a process that isn't quite listing evidence, weighing it, and deducing logical consequence. Rationality is much bigger than that sort of thing. If you apply rational methods empathetically, you will convince a lot more people. This is true in all spheres of life. Even at the lab bench.
I used to believe we could just talk (hug) it out. But now I've given up.
If you find examples, guides, howtos, case studies for what you're suggesting, I'm all ears, please share.
Do you think that is fabricating evidence is not possible? Is the possibility to fabricate evidence in favor of vaccines as outlandish as the claim of flat earthers?
I am also curios as to why when ever there is a discussion of flat earthers, there's is always someone who tries to throw anti-vaxxers or vaccine-skeptics into the same bunch.
No; one is about a 13.6 on the logarithmic outlandish scale and the other 15.1.
That is certainly plausible, but there was almost no real evidence presented here. It seems like the author is jumping to conclusions. As far as we know, two of the three speakers covered in this story happened to mention the existence of non-specific personal issues in passing. How many people don’t have any personal issues?
It could be that some people do need help. And it could also be incredibly insulting and patronizing to just assume that people with beliefs different than ours are in need of mental help, as opposed to simply having strange beliefs. After all, religion still exists despite a lack of evidence. Treating religious people as stuck in a dark “rabbit hole” is at best ostracizing.
> Landucci points out that if we take the Spanish initials for the United Nations, ‘ONU’, and read it backwards, we get ‘Uno’ – which is Spanish for ‘One’. This, he explains, is proof that the UN is a tool of the One World Order.
For the entire article, I couldn’t stop thinking of the Illuminati Confirmed videos on YouTube.
I agree with this in principle, but at what point do we have no other choice? Witches? Lizard people? Alien abductions?
I guess what I’m suggesting is that “listening” to crazy theories because you feel sorry for people under the assumption that they’re unstable or have trauma in their past is much worse than either 1) ignoring them, or 2) engaging in their debate on their terms (i.e. taking them seriously).
If it looks crazy, then just ignore it, but don’t assume it’s because the person is crazy or has mental problems. They might, just don’t assume.
The other half of my point is that literally everyone has crazy theories that aren’t supported by evidence. Religion covers half the world, but even scientists have bizarre beliefs, and all humans are subject to cognitive mistakes, and we are physiologically wired to hang on to our beliefs even when they’re wrong. I personally know a bunch of people with PhDs who stick to ideas that are wrong, like my doctor friend who doesn’t “believe” in counting calories for weight loss. I’m sure I have one or two myself, and I don’t know what they are.
We need to recognize that you and I and all of us also have wacky beliefs and we wouldn’t want to be labeled as mental. Assuming that something is wrong with someone because of their beliefs is a deliberate form of “othering”.
*edit:
One way I like to think about this is like so:
Make a list of all the thing you know that you’ve actually verified yourself. We know the earth is round, but have you actually proven it to yourself? I haven’t. I “know” that space exists because of other people’s stories, I’ve never been there myself. Pretty much everything I “know” about computers and politics and religion and psychology, and everything else, is things I’ve heard or read that other people verified, not me. The list of things I know 100% for a fact because I proved it myself is a very short list.
You never really know, especially if you have never even look.
When the day comes that there isn't a person around that will challenge their thoughts with something they find crazy, it will be a dark day.
Edit: after reading the article I see that my comment is not related.
It's not about being right so much as not being wrong. It's a position of arrogance and insolence that is being argued from, not really one of true educational purpose. It's dishonest discourse for the purpose of self-gratification, just like any other poster online looking just for kicks and giggles. There may be an honest belief behind flat-earthers and other such conspiracy theorists, but just observe the similarities between any bargain-bin message board troll and a flat-earth conspiracy theorist and it's easy to see the other motivations that drive the conspiracy theorists.
The big thing with conspiracy theories is that everything is evidence of the theory, whether it seems good or bad for the theory. You find indisputable proof that it's wrong, and the truth is twisted to be another conspiracy in and of itself which proves the legitimacy of the original theory. There is some inconclusive data that is the result of a long term study, and that is proof of the theory because the theory can be neatly fitted to the available evidence, barring any scrutiny.
It becomes a game of constant mental bouts, bringing in hoards of evidence against often unprepared targets, and truly the only real winning strategy is not to play. The entire point is to surprise and assault an unsuspecting person who is not prepared with the same amount of curated arguments and prepared answer cards.
If you've ever caught the sales side of a major organization, you'll know that they often produce "battle cards" for competing products. These battle cards are often built with three points; Attack, Defend, Avoid. Attack tells you how to best attack the competition and their weakest points that can be overcome. Defend tells you how to shore up your own product's weak points, and Avoid tells you want points to absolutely dodge at any cost and how to use the point as a pivot to something better (in order to ignore the difficult point). I see this 100% repeated in conspiracy theory image spam, and you can see the same thing with the message board trolls and how they prep for engaging people. The strategy isn't about arguments based on merit or reason, but instead creating a compelling narrative for an audience to follow.
And that's the real target here. Flat-earther conspiracy theorists and other such conspiracy theorists aren't looking to have a discourse and convince any specific person with an opposing view-point. They're looking to put on the greatest show possible to attract the largest audience, and maybe get a few converts along the way. You don't need to be hostile towards conspiracy theorists, but the idea of hearing them out and entertaining their thoughts beyond just a very limited and controlled dialogue is a bad idea, since the theory doesn't expand far beyond just having an alternative theory that bucks the current consensus. So sure, pay attention, and be polite, but also there's a need to be firm, because a lot of this is attention seeking behavior looking for a platform and for credulity, not for a discussion. The idea that they will dive deeper into more outrageous positions and theories is a bit silly, as they would do that anyways; as within any subculture, the desire to be "the most ____" will always drive participants to up the ante and act out in bigger and bigger ways. Whether or not one listens to them is irrelevant.
This, for those like me who had not heard of it, is the idea that Finland does not exist, and there is a conspiracy to make the world think that it does.
When really, almost the opposite is true: not only does Finland exist, but it is the surviving part of the Roman Empire:
I have once entertained starting a conspiracy theory saying that unix shell pipes were originally created to allow piping fortune to cowsay.
But it just won’t seem to work out. They seem to get smaller and smaller and too small to see if the botttom is disappearing first. I’m going to have to try it with a telescope. It’s kind making me question my own beliefs.
Also they made me watch some of those YouTube videos about the eclipse going in the wrong direction. I still haven’t been able to explain that. :-(
I guess my point is don’t expect an easy debate if you engage them. Some of this stuff just isn’t as easy as you’d expect.
You mean a video that's flipped or running backwards? Why would you question your whole worldview before questioning the reliability of the alleged evidence?
There are lots of videos and article with explanations but none of them clicked for me.
The moon actually moves much faster than the Earth spins -- it just seems to move westward to humans on the ground because it's so far away from Earth (takes 28 days to go around Earth). During a solar eclipse though, we see the effect of its true blisteringly fast orbital speed.
"Because the Moon moves to the east in its orbit at about 3,400 km/hour. Earth rotates to the east at 1,670 km/hr at the equator, so the lunar shadow moves to the east at 3,400 – 1,670 = 1,730 km/hr near the equator. You cannot keep up with the shadow of the eclipse unless you traveled at Mach 1.5."
The apparent relative motion with respect to the Sun is what matters. Of course, both bodies are rising in the East and setting in the West. But at the moment of the eclipse, the Moon is a little slower.
Stars in general appear to move across the sky (east -> west) faster than the moon does. Does this mean the stars are actually moving faster than the moon? Of course not. The sky is just a stationary backdrop, and the moon is moving along the same direction as Earth's rotation.
I worry about the guy who fired shots into a pizza restaurant with an AR-15 because he believed it was a front for a child sex ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory
Or when some random clown from Texas, who campaigned on disbanding the Dept of Energy, now runs it.
Now you have my attention.
On the other hand, I have quite a few disagreements with the established health industry. I cured a hole in my tooth in college in the late 90s on my own. I am still called a quack and a liar despite my wife knowing about this, and just this past year real scientific proof (and even medical products) coming out confirming it's true.
But in the mean time, until it's widely accepted, I will be called a liar and/or quack/delusional. And this is has nothing to do with trauma, but simply ignorance, and a lack of interest in testing. (conspiracy would say that dentists don't want people healing their own teeth)
Also, I don't eat any processed white sugar (including corn syrups and their ilk) and I suspect this helped.
The tooth filled in on it's own. I just kept it cleaned out. I think the term I ran into recently that seems to describe my experience is "re-mineralization". Today is the first time I thought to look this term up on wikipedia. [0]
>Saliva, being the watery substance that constantly circulates the oral cavity, is capable of impacting both the remineralisation and demineralisation processes.
This quote from the Wikipedia article is sourced from a paper in The Journal of the American Dental Association. [1]
>Remineralization occurs on a daily basis after an acidogenic challenge through the presence of saliva.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remineralisation_of_teeth
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000281771...
That's how it was done millenias ago.
Can you please elaborate on how you “cured” a hole in your tooth?
I’m genuinely curious if your wording is misleading on what transpired or I’m feeding a troll.
My teeth have always been terrible, would you mind sharing a link or two to the research?
Edit: I had to redo this comment because I mis-read your comment. Here's the story including comments.[0]
Yep, I have never once claimed my comments to be anything more than what I experienced. Feel free to try things out if you want, or ignore it.
and just this past year real scientific proof (and even medical products) coming out confirming it's true.
Your story is interesting, but it’s a lot more compelling since you claim it’s backed by scientific proof, so any kind of link or reference would be appreciated.
I think it's completely valid to state my experience is anecdotal (which it is, I didn't take pictures or document anything) and let the scientists make the proof for or against.
It really sucks to have any sort of health problem, and I don't mean to imply I have some special knowledge about this and am just messing with you. I linked the proof I've recently come across in the other comments around this one. (I can do it again, but it seems redundant) I think this stuff is becoming common enough knowledge that you can find proof from a simple Google search.
An oft repeated idea seems to be improving diet. (bad food can wreck teeth all on it's own, so I think we would all agree that food plays a part in dental health)
Is it worth arguing with flat-earthers though?
I have family in Japan and in Ireland, I doubt talking to them at the same time from the US would mean a darn thing.
"Looking back at my weekend with Flat Earthers, it is striking how many people who doubt the global model of the Earth also subscribe to all manner of other beliefs, from Biblical literalism to occultist paranoia, from anti-vaccination to quack cancer cues, from antisemitism to Aryanism. But it was also just as striking how many people whose journey into believing the Earth is flat included traumatic events or personal crises.
This, perhaps, is why it is so important for us to listen to and talk to Flat Earthers, and to approach them as much with understanding as ridicule: if they can see no light in mainstream society, their rabbit hole may only get deeper and darker."
This is one of the most humane, compassionate worldviews I've read in a while.
I really want to be more like Michael Marshall (the author), but I just don't know how.
Maybe I do, and just need to do it more. Last year I got involved with protecting wolves from one rogue rancher. During the public hearing, things got very heated. I found myself empathizing with the ranchers more than the enviros, two of whom acted very embarrassingly. One rancher (who was actually an ally of the enviros but still being attacked) had to leave the room, so I went out to check on him.
I guess I'm still trying to figure out how we're supposed to engage with people we strongly disagree with.
> Looking back at my weekend with Flat Earthers, it is striking how many
> people who doubt the global model of the Earth also subscribe to all
> manner of other beliefs, from Biblical literalism to occultist paranoia,
> from anti-vaccination to quack cancer cues, from antisemitism to Aryanism.
> But it was also just as striking how many people whose journey into
> believing the Earth is flat included traumatic events or personal crises.
>
> This, perhaps, is why it is so important for us to listen to and talk
> to Flat Earthers, and to approach them as much with understanding as
> ridicule: if they can see no light in mainstream society, their rabbit
> hole may only get deeper and darker.Trauma is real. Our society doesn't place enough emphasis in recognizing mental health issues other than depression. There are many other events that cause trauma and people deal with it in many different ways.
This is why you no matter the number of facts you present in online discussions will ever dissuade these individuals from their positions.