Spread of Flat Earther Nonsense Shows We Are In A Period Of Intellectual Regression

Flat Earth buffs meet for a 'seminar' in Fort Collins. They believe they've aced reality and know more than the 'academic elites'. They are totally bonkers wrong.

Let's concede that the pace of modern scientific advance has been breathtaking. Some have noted that more new knowledge has been generated since 1997 than in the previous 400 years- up to and including 1997-  which is probably an understatement. Scientific journals and papers have proliferated at such a rate that most specialists barely have the time (or energy) to keep up with their own niche area, far less the entire discipline.

One estimate is that  1.8 million articles  are published each year, in about 28,000 journals. This elicits the question: who actually reads those papers?  According to one 2007 study, half of academic papers are read only by their authors and journal editors. This is nothing short of astounding but makes sense if one gets inside what research scientists actually do, which is to narrow their focus almost exclusively to their specific specialty areas  In addition, specialty areas themselves can be reduced to sub specialties, for example solar physics has a sub-discipline of solar flare magneto-hydrodynamics, another of solar flare predictions. Perhaps the former comprises 5 percent of solar physics and the latter 2 percent. Take the overlap between them and you may only find 50 solar physicists.

If the situation is practically untenable for regular scientists to keep pace with scientific knowledge, imagine what it must be like for most laymen, who may not even have been exposed to a high school biology or physics course.  At some point the burden of trying to keep pace with new knowledge - even produced in popular literature- may be too much for them, so they just give up. They either opt to blank out, or - as often the case- deny a given tenet or scientific principle or even an entire theory (e.g. general relativity).

This notion isn't new or remarkable. As far back as 1970, author Alvin Toffler - in his book, 'Future Shock' - observed (p. 326) that "one response to high speed change is outright denial".  Adding: "The Denier's strategy is to block out unwelcome reality".    Like the "disaster victim whose face registers total disbelief , the Denier too cannot accept the evidence of his senses. Thus he concludes things really are the same and all evidences of change are merely superficial."

This memetic basis, I believe, applies as much to the climate change or evolution denier as it now does to the new breed: the regressive flat Earther who denies the Earth's sphericity.  While the climate change denier rejects the cumulative evidence of the past several decades showing CO2 buildup connected to a rapidly warming Earth, the flat Earther rejects the evidence of the past two thousand years.  The first astronomical credit for deducing a spherical Earth is generally awarded to Eratosthenes (276 - 194 B.C.) who used basic trigonometry (based on the shadow length at Alexandria) to estimate the Earth's circumference within 5 to 15 % of its actual value.

According to a Denver Post front page story yesterday, the flat Earth bunch is making a return here in Colorado with regular meetings in Fort Collins. According to the Post:

"Every Tuesday at 6 p.m., three dozen Coloradans from every corner of the state assemble in the windowless back room of a small Fort Collins coffee shop. They have met 16 times since March, most nights talking through the ins and outs of their shared faith until the owners kick them out at closing.

They have no leaders, no formal hierarchy and no enforced ideology, save a common quest for answers to questions about the stars. Their membership has slowly swelled in the past three years, though persecution and widespread public derision keep them mostly underground. Many use pseudonyms, or only give first names.

“They just do not want to talk about it for fear of reprisals or ridicule from co-workers,” says John Vnuk, the group’s founder who lives in Fort Collins."


Well, of course, they shouldn't fear "reprisals" - because there is no place in a civilized society for any physical attacks on such people who hold archaic beliefs.  However, they can't expect to be immune from harsh criticism, provided it is scientifically based and not so much in the ad hominem regime.

What is more difficult to believe is this codswallop (ibid.):

"He is at the epicenter of a budding movement, one that’s coming for your books, movies, God and mind. They’re thousands strong — perhaps one in every 500 — and have proponents at the highest levels of science, sports, journalism and arts.

They call themselves Flat Earthers. Because they believe Earth — the blue, majestic, spinning orb of life — is as flat as a table."

If true, this would represent a monumental intellectual reversal on a par perhaps, with returning medicine to the age of using leeches to "bleed bad humors" out of sick people.  Say, as opposed to delivering antibiotics or using other interventions.    But it would play into Toffler's observation of a significant population no longer able to keep up with modern science.

Indeed, it is doubtful any of these flat Earthers have even heard of the specialized science of geodesy - i.e. as defined from Wikipedia:

"Geodesy, also called geodetics, is the scientific discipline that deals with the measurement and representation of the Earth, its gravitational field and geodynamic phenomena (polar motion, Earth tides, and crustal motion) in three-dimensional time-varying space."

In other words, this highly technical science is devoted to the precise measurement of the Earth's shape using specialized satellites and advanced techniques. Most of these have been published in a superb monograph featuring a chapter on geodesy by the late Heinrich K. Eichhorn who used to be the chairman of the Dept. Of Astronomy at the University of South Florida.



Eichhorn's chapter is a masterpiece and shows in detail what must be done to arrive at the "geoid". Will the flat Earthers read it? I doubt it because they likely lack the math background to grasp its most basic principles, such as satellite orbits. Do they even believe that satellites exist? One wonders.

Vnuk goes on to chirp:

"Some will accept it, some won’t. But love it or hate it, you can’t ignore Flat Earth.”

Uh, yes we can! Other than as a historical curiosity that eventually humans got savvy enough - in their methods and knowledge- to out grow. It is tragic that this now represents a regression to more primitive times, but again it fits in with Alvin Toffler's take on those who can't accept rapid scientific change. They are "future shocked".

Vnuk claims the Fort Collins group "touts itself as the first community of Flat Earthers in the United States. Sister groups have since spawned in Boston, New York, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix and Chicago."

Which leads me to think many of those joining just want to be controversial and contrarian. They probably couldn't explain any "scientific" basis for rejecting sphericity if they had to.

One thing these folks must admit is the Moon is plainly visible in the sky and it IS spherical, e.g.

And no, they can't argue the image is still "flat like a pancake" because the phenomenon of astronomical nutation allows us to see over the top of the Moon's pole in a spherical context.

In addition, they probably can't even grasp that if indeed the Earth was flat as they claim, and in a mutual orbit with a spherical Moon, the orbit would soon become unstable. Indeed, we would not observe the regularity of Earth tides which in large measure arise on account of the differential gravitation effect of the Moon on the spherical Earth - with greater attraction at the near point than the far one, e.g.


Here, the Moon exerts a pull of force F1 on the near point (call it A on the Earth). By the same token, point B on the opposite side from A would be pulled nearer to the Moon than the water above it, thereby inducing a high tide at point B as well. In other words, two separate pulls resulting in two high tides at locations A  and B. This model also allows the prediction (average) for the time between two tides at 12 hrs. 25 mins.    Close inspection of (b)  would show tide raising forces were greatest at the intermediate points.  That is, between the Moon’s nadir and zenith positions.

Incredibly, the flat Earthers even have "donation boxes" staked out to try to collect money for bill boards, e.g.


Talk about a total waste!    But to further try to give ballast to this nonsense the Post quotes a guy named Bob Knodel, who supposedly was an "engineer" for 35 years. What kind they don't say. Maybe a sanitary engineer? According to Knodel:

"There’s so much evidence once you set aside your preprogrammed learning and begin to look at things objectively with a critical eye says you learn soon that what we’re taught is mainly propaganda.”

Seriously? A satellite geodetic survey is propaganda? How about flying great circle routes,   say to get  from New York City to Hong Kong. e. g.
or has Knodel never done that?


Why take that particular route? Well, because for a spherical geometry it is the shortest route between two points - so it saves fuel and time!  If he had the time (and math background) I'd even show him how to calculate the distance between two locations on Earth - say Barbados to Bristol, England, using spherical trigonometry, e.g.

cos(dist.)= sin (lat1) sin (lat2) + cos (lat1) cos (lat2) cos (long1 - long2)

In this case, Barbados latitude is 13 deg N., Bristol's is 51 deg 26' N. Bristol's longitude is   2 deg 35' W. Barbados' longitude is 59 deg 30'  W.

This is all one needs to use the spherical triangle formula to arrive at the distance (taking into account the circumference value of 24,901 mi.).

Knodel "runs the popular YouTube channel Globebusters," which has nearly 2 million views across more than 135 videos.   So it appears he is at least knowledgeable about spreading mind viruses- especially among those whose brains have already been colonized by fake news.

Knodel goes on:

“I’ve researched conspiracies for a long time. I’ve looked very critically at NASA. Why is it that the astronauts have conflicting stories about the sky? Is it bright with stars, or a deep velvet black?”


Well, maestro, because different astronauts (and even the same)  making orbits at different times will experience variable illumination and also (timed to the period of satellite orbits) "daylight" and "night" - e.g. once they pass the day-night terminator. Hence, in the latter condition they will see the sky as "velvet black" and indeed populated with stars, and at other times with brighter background, e.g. in 'daylight' conditions of the orbit. There are no 'conflicting stories' unless one reads conflicting stories into the accounts and is unable to parse correctly what is being said.

The most amusing part of the Post account:

“How are we Flat Earthers supposed to explain to our friends the solar eclipse in August?” asked one attendee. The room fell silent. “We’ll have to do more research and get back to you on that.”

Ah yes, "do more research and get back on that".   Meanwhile, the solar eclipse is easily explained by appeal to shadow geometry applied to the assorted spherical bodies involved: Sun, Earth and Moon, e.g.


Indeed, the path of the shadow cone (umbra-penumbra) itself depends directly on the Earth being a spherical - not flat- body.

Anyway, after the flat Earthers return to the drawing table I can hardly wait to see what their 'research' coughs up.   It's bound to be awesome. Heck, maybe they can even put it on a billboard. (If it will fit!)

'A Survival Guide For The Misinformation Age' - And Convincing Kyrie Irving The World Isn't Flat!

Let us accept, as science popularizer Isaac Asimov noted once in a lecture,  e.g.
There will always be the chance for misinformation, especially in science, to overtake information and genuine knowledge. This can happen if people become complacent or don't understand scientific thinking and methods, or even the basic math by which data are processed, models analyzed.  Asimov even in his 1976 lecture given in Barbados, worried that "flat Earthers" could re-appear if the educational system didn't do its job in showing students how science was actually done. Hence, Asimov believed a flat Earther might emerge in a 'bubble' of ignorance where his own misinformation and erroneous beliefs are reinforced by others.  That even applied to whether, in fact, humans really landed on the Moon or were merely clever actors on a Hollywood sound stage.

Now a new book, 'A Guide To Survival In the Misinformation Age', takes this further noting how in a wide variety of disciplines misinformation rules, often abetted by the education system itself. For example, in U.S. Biology courses textbooks on evolution face never-ending challenges in school districts across the country, namely by local school boards - especially in the South.   When evolution is taught, it is often in a watered -down, neutered way, i.e. teaching it alongside some form of intelligent design (often cleverly couched), or taught in the sense that it is "God's way of creating species", when there is no need to interject a deity, period.

Then there is the abysmal lack of even basic physics education, leading to large swaths of the population questioning the reality of CO2 -induced climate change and even whether the amount  of CO2 is increasing. In many cases, students are unable to even correctly describe the workings of a greenhouse, far less appreciate or process the "Greenhouse effect". And if they can't meet that threshold, how would they begin to understand the runaway Greenhouse effect?

Thus, the new book by David J. Helfand (Columbia University Press) plays a key role in exposing the pitfalls of scientific misinformation  as well as other forms - but also doing this by emphasizing the methods of science.  Thus, Helfand inculcates "habits of mind" which are basically modes of critical thinking in a scientific reasoning sense.

Helfand's book also came to mind when I recently read (Denver Post, Perspective, p. 3D) about an NBA player, Kyrie Irving (Cleveland Cavs), who insists the Earth is flat.   This was in an article by Professor of Psychology Craig A. Foster, who wrote that it is actually much harder to show Irving he is wrong than one might think. As he wrote:

"How does a sane person believe the Earth is flat?  To begin, this person is convinced by others that the Earth is flat. Humans characteristically dislike being wrong, so subsequent challenges to this belief are interpreted in a confirmatory manner. Individuals can address evidence of a round Earth with ad hoc hypotheses that are easily obtained from other flat Earthers. The curve of the horizon is caused by undulations in the flat Earth. Circumnavigation is just traveling in a circle. Each of these counterarguments further embeds the individual in the flat Earth view.

Finally, if the evidence becomes too condemning, one can summon a conspiracy theory that is impossible to debunk. Photographs from space are part of a NASA conspiracy. NASA maintains this conspiracy using money siphoned from the space budget to hide the faked moon landing.

These arguments seem “crazy” to those who believe the Earth is a globe, but people routinely fall victim to fundamentally similar thinking in other scientific domains. The evidence for man-made climate change can be attributed to natural temperature cycles, Science’s inability to detect the vaccination-autism link is due to the subtlety of the effect."

These points are all valid but got me thinking how, indeed, one would convince Irving that his belief is based on a false perception or misinformation.  How, in other words, could one convince him  without Kyrie offering a snarky comeback or testy rationalization? (Somewhat analogous to the climate denier's: "Well, Mars has global warming too! Big deal!")

The first thing that came to mind is using a good telescope to have him confront the multifold evidence of sphericity for all the planets as well as most of the moons, in the solar system. I would let him observe assorted objects such as the Moon, Jupiter etc.  For example, in the Celestron telescope with  which I carried out my sunspot study Irving would observe Jupiter like this:


Does it appear flat or round? Obviously it isn't flat - though he may try to argue it's "flat like a pancake". In that case you get him to stick around to observe as the planet turns on its axis, rotating to bring newer features into view. A 'pancake" can't rotate like that!  (I.e. sequential 'round' planes are visible with differing features.)

Our nearest neighbor the moon is also round. Why would it be round (spherical) and not the Earth?

 Then, of course, there is also the Sun, which he could observe through a solar filter like the one I employed for my spot-flare investigations.

Why is the Sun not flat?

Ultimately, after showing him more examples as well (Saturn, Venus, Mars etc.) he would have to account for why Earth is the exception and the other bodies are all spherical.

Then there is the classic proof for a flat Earther! Letting him observe an eclipse of the Moon. Thus, he would observe the Earth's shadow moving across the lunar surface, and yes - it is rounded, e.g.

If the Earth is flat, then why would it cast a rounded shadow on the Moon's surface? 

Of course, let us admit that when dealing with a rationalizing  irrationalist there are always an indefinite number of responses he might proffer that avoid admitting he is wrong. Such is the power of the human mind to be 'wrong and strong'  And let's admit a lot of this is instilled by the 'pop off'  culture we inhabit  (much inspired by talk radio) where every wise guy has an opinion that may not be matched with knowledge.

It is also this culture which inveighs against science, especially in critical areas like climate change. And as Foster declares (ibid.) the "flat Earth" syndrome, if we are not alert and aware,  could morph into a much wider opposition to science than we see now. 

As Prof. Foster writes (ibid.):

"People and politicians frequently undermine science and science journalism by arguing that these groups are plagued with self-interest and deception. By doing so, the psychological discomfort that might accompany being wrong can be wiped away. One only has to buy into a conspiracy that explains contradictory evidence and then communicate with like-minded people or news sources."

Still, I surmise that using the methods I outlined above, it would at least be very difficult for Irving to squirm out of admitting the Earth is spherical, not flat. I'm not saying he couldn't come up with some codswallop (since climate change deniers always appear able to ) but the sphericity of Earth is on a lot more deterministic ground.

Finally, given he'd have to have flown on planes at one time or other, I'd ask how he would explain the airlines taking a great circle route, say to get to Hong Kong. e. g.

Why take that particular route? Well, because for a spherical geometry it is the shortest route between two points - so it saves fuel and time!  If he had the time (and math background) I'd even show him how to calculate the distance between two locations on Earth - say Barbados to Bristol, England, using spherical trigonometry, e.g.

cos(dist.)= sin (lat1) sin (lat2) + cos (lat1) cos (lat2) cos (long1 - long2)

In this case, Barbados latitude is 13 deg N., Bristol's is 51 deg 26' N. Bristol's longitude is   2 deg 35' W. Barbados' longitude is 59 deg 30'  W.

This is all one needs to use the spherical triangle formula to arrive at the distance (taking into account the circumference value of 24,901 mi.). This is left as a problem for ambitious readers.

 Therefore,  one can ask:  how could I use spherical trig for a flat Earth and get the correct distance? Five will get you ten he'd have no answer. If he does it will likely be rationalized bollocks, like "you just fudged the numbers and besides how do you know that's the right distance anyway?"

I suggest if Irving finds ways around all these strategies then it is likely because he lacks exposure to the scientific frame of mind and process itself. (The core of Helfand's book). Either way, it ought to prompt all of us invested in science and reality to be prepared for a future when most of our fellow citizens may come under the shadow of scientific misinformation. Prof. Foster's ending words are especially timely now with the EPA etc being dismantled by the Trumpites. This means scientists can't sit back with noses in their research only - they must speak out against balderdash. The reason is that as it encroaches and pollutes the public mind there is ever greater risk of losing research funds. To quote Foster again:

"If the United States does not change its anti-science ways, its residents might see the day where people challenge the round Earth in a similar manner. Oh, and if you think that this could not happen because the round Earth is a scientific fact, you’re wrong. One could argue that the round Earth is a theory, and isn’t a scientific theory just a theory?"

Problems:

1) Work out the distance from Barbados to Bristol using the spherical trig formula. (You can round off values to the nearest tenth.)

2) Describe another way you might try to convince Kyrie Irving that the Earth is spherical.