Chapter 1: The Flat Earth Community

In recent years, a notable group known as "flat earthers" has emerged, espousing the belief that:

1. Our world is a flat surface rather than a spinning sphere orbiting the sun.
2. There exists a conspiracy among governments and scientific entities to conceal this truth.

This community has developed its own conventions, including conferences and podcasts. Some members even construct miniature models of a flat earth to illustrate their perspective. As seen in more traditional scientific circles, there are significant disagreements within this community, both personally and theoretically. Much of this information can be gleaned from the documentary Behind the Curve, which is available on various streaming platforms.

The online community often enjoys mocking flat earthers, especially after clips from the aforementioned documentary gained traction. One of the main experiments featured in the film became widely circulated because it seemingly either validated the round earth theory or refuted the flat earth perspective. Yet, as depicted in the documentary, the flat earthers persist in their beliefs, often dismissing evidence that contradicts their views.

However, to assume that flat earthers fundamentally misinterpret their experimental results is a misunderstanding of the scientific process itself. The effort they put into designing and reasoning through their experiment exemplifies solid scientific reasoning, not flawed logic. Their conclusion—that the evidence was insufficient to shift their beliefs—is not uncommon in genuine scientific practice. As highlighted in the film, belief in a flat earth is not solely based on scientific reasoning; rather, the community's reasoning flaws are more nuanced than simply declaring, "They proved themselves wrong!"

Let's delve into the experiment conducted by the flat earth community and understand why rejecting their evidence was not an error.

The film captures flat earthers conducting experiments aimed at proving that the earth is flat. The primary experiment involved projecting a beam of light over a significant distance. The premise was that if the earth is flat, the beam would maintain a constant height above the ground. Conversely, if the earth is spherical, the beam would dip closer to the ground at a distance. A basic illustration of this is provided below.

This scenario serves as an excellent case of scientific reasoning. The flat earthers needed to:

1. Evaluate two competing models of the earth: one where it curves and another where it remains flat while celestial bodies orbit above it.
2. Understand the implications of each model. In model comparison, both can yield similar predictions in certain areas while diverging in others.
3. Develop a practical test to differentiate the two models. It’s noteworthy that their chosen test focused on one specific aspect: the impact of the earth's curvature on a straight line.

Initially, they planned to use a powerful laser for the light source but encountered challenges due to the dispersion of the laser beam at long distances. The lead experimenter recognized this issue and adjusted the laser to narrow its beam. After several unsuccessful attempts, he adapted his strategy, using a spotlight instead, while other team members positioned large boards with cutouts at various distances. After significant effort, they successfully conducted the test. The principal investigator remarked on the challenges of running experiments, highlighting the difficulties involved.

So far, everything appears standard, right? This represents the normal course of scientific inquiry. You start with a hypothesis, derive measurable implications from it, and then devise a method to test it. After refining your instruments, you aim to gather the intended data.

What were the results? When the light was elevated, it was visible from the opposite side, but when lowered, it could not be seen. This posed a challenge for the flat earth perspective, suggesting that the earth's curvature might obstruct the light. However, the flat earthers offered their explanation: the presence of weeds obstructed the light when the spotlight was lowered. Essentially, they attributed the light's failure to reach its destination to the foliage, not the earth's curvature.

One might argue, "Aha! The experimental design was sound, but their interpretation of the results was flawed: they should acknowledge that their experiment disproved their theory!" Yet, this conclusion is misguided. The flat earthers' reasoning for their experimental results is not inherently unscientific.

Scientific advancement does not hinge on a single piece of evidence; rather, it arises from a collection of data over time. For instance, the Michaelson-Morley experiments were pivotal in indicating that, unlike other measurements, the speed of light remains constant regardless of the observer's motion. Did scientists conclude after one experiment? Certainly not! A multitude of subsequent experiments validated this astonishing concept, and Einstein further developed a profound model by embracing the accumulation of experimental evidence that clarified several perplexing observations, such as the unusual orbit of Mercury.

From an external viewpoint, it may seem absurd to "blame it on the weeds." Nevertheless, scientists frequently grapple with similar dilemmas. They question whether their instruments are calibrated correctly or if there are external factors affecting their readings. Is there a different interpretation that hasn't been considered?

Single experiments do not definitively affirm or disprove any hypothesis. This is because experiments do not isolate single hypotheses. Surprising outcomes in science often arise, leading one to think they "disprove" the hypothesis in question. However, it can be entirely reasonable to uphold the hypothesis while disregarding, rejecting, or reinterpreting the data. This is a routine practice among professional scientists.

The critical aspect is perseverance. Conducting one experiment is insufficient. Is there an alternative method to test the same idea? Can the experiment be repeated with the same protocols? Do the protocols require revision? What explanation accounts for all evidence—both experimental results and existing knowledge? A logical next step would be to enhance the experiment's precision, reducing the validity of the "weeds" explanation. Perhaps it was weeds once, but what about two, three, or four times? Could it be that the issue was localized to this area, and they are now testing on a flat plain or desert?

Public discussions surrounding science often emphasize individual experiments. The media typically reports on results from isolated studies, presenting them as groundbreaking. This perspective is rooted in a hypothetico-deductive framework, which inaccurately portrays the scientific process, much like a flat earth model misrepresents our planet. Science encompasses various elements—measurement, explanation, argumentation, replication, modeling, and more—yet it is not merely about how single experiments validate a hypothesis.

The belief in a flat earth does not primarily stem from poor experimental methods. We often think, "Their belief is erroneous (even absurd), so they must be misinterpreting evidence." However, in their experimental approach, there is nothing particularly unusual. They are simply starting from a fundamentally different viewpoint than most of us. Their path to the notion of a "flat earth" did not arise from meticulous experimentation and scientific reasoning; rather, it seems they gravitate towards conspiratorial narratives and seek a supportive community. One prominent individual in the film mentions searching for a conspiracy to believe in.

So, are flat earthers making a scientific reasoning error? Yes, but it pertains more to their evaluation of explanations than their experimental execution. Thoughtful individuals have accepted the concept of a round earth for millennia. Why? Because a spherical earth coherently explains everyday observations, while a flat earth fails to do so.

Consider the following observations:

• As boats approach land, the mountains appear to rise gradually rather than appearing all at once. This phenomenon was noted by Ptolemy, a significant astronomer from the 2nd century A.D.
• The hulls of boats far on the horizon become invisible due to the earth's curvature.
• As boats depart from shore on a clear day, their hulls disappear first, followed by their sails.
• When traveling south, southern constellations emerge from the horizon, a phenomenon noted by Aristotle in the 4th century B.C.

In contemporary life, we may not experience these phenomena firsthand, but we can certainly seek them out. However, we are also faced with a myriad of conflicting observations that challenge the notion of a flat earth:

• A flat earth implies a boundary surrounding the earth. How can one traverse between two distant points so swiftly?
• Flight paths often appear curved when displayed on a flat screen or map. Why is this so? A spherical earth explains that curved routes are typically the shortest, while a flat earth does not.
• How does GPS function on a flat earth?
• What about satellites—how do they operate on a flat earth? Is space travel impossible? Are satellites merely floating in space?
• And how does gravity operate on a flat earth?

Ultimately, it's not about "proof"—it's about the coherence of explanations. When a single explanation effectively accounts for existing evidence, particularly when it encompasses various types of evidence, the scientific approach is to maintain that explanation. If it can also predict and control future events—like the successful functioning of a GPS system based on modern physics—that serves as even stronger evidence that the explanation is not just useful but may be fundamentally true.

Of course, conspiratorial thinking offers its own form of explanatory coherence: the absence of evidence for the conspiracy is itself seen as further proof that such evidence has been hidden.

It’s unlikely that experiments will alter the beliefs of many flat earthers. They have numerous reasons for their convictions, such as finding a sense of belonging within a supportive community. Rejecting their beliefs could result in social ostracism. Moreover, believing in a flat earth can provide a sense of possessing knowledge that eludes the majority. Conversely, rejecting these beliefs may entail admitting to having been incorrect in a highly public manner. However, if we hold faith in the capacity of scientific research to influence people's beliefs—and I do—then we should be promoting their investigative efforts rather than ridiculing them.

Chapter 2: Scientific Inquiry and Flat Earth Beliefs

This video, titled Flat Earth vs. Round Earth | Explorer - YouTube, provides a visual exploration of the contrasting beliefs surrounding flat earth theory and scientific evidence.

In the second video, Flat Earth "Science" -- Wrong, but not Stupid - YouTube, the discussion delves into the reasoning behind flat earth beliefs and how they reflect broader issues in scientific reasoning.