How would you rate the chance of flat-earthism becoming a serious thing soon?

[Raphael]

Ok, let's assume for a moment that the world survives the current geopolitical disaster, and that we're not hit by a meteor, either. Let's assume that modern technological society keeps on going in one form or another. I'm currently 40 going on 41. If I make it to a ripe old age, how would you rate the chance that, at some point during my lifetime, the belief that the Earth is flat will become a serious well-established phenomenon in society? Not a majority opinion, mind you, but a position with serious traction among certain types of politicians and celebrities? About as big as the antivax movement is now? Under that set of conditions, I'd give it about a 50/50 chance. How about you?

[alice]

Given that the idea can be easily disproved in many, many ways, I'd say the chances are quite high.

[Ryusenshi]

I had the impression that the enthusiasm was already dying down.

Has anyone heard about Creationism recently? It seemed to gain traction a few years ago, but we hardly hear about it nowadays.

[bradrn]

Has anyone heard about Creationism recently? It seemed to gain traction a few years ago, but we hardly hear about it nowadays.

Probably just because people ignore them now. This article puts it succinctly: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/c ... hallenged/

[Raphael]

I guess Creationism is kind of overshadowed by all those other out-there ideas with widespread acceptance these days. Plus, a lot of right-wingers now seem to be a lot into their distorted versions of evolutionary biology, which makes it kinda difficult for them to be Creationists.

[Moose-tache]

One Youtuber tracked several prominent flat-Earthers and found that most of them had switched to QAnon. I doubt the flatness of the Earth was really that important in their movement. The real meat and potatoes was the "lying authorities" angle, which can adapt to new contexts. We might see a lot of Soros/Illuminati/Lizard-people content related to MMT in the next few years, or maybe a cryptic doubling down on transphobia. But flat Earth is pretty dead.

[bradrn]

One Youtuber tracked several prominent flat-Earthers and found that most of them had switched to QAnon. I doubt the flatness of the Earth was really that important in their movement. The real meat and potatoes was the "lying authorities" angle, which can adapt to new contexts.

Indeed. Conspiracy theories are often totally incoherent; what really matters is that feeling that you know more than everyone else.

(…which I’m pretty sure I first heard from the same site I linked before, but I’m not entirely sure. It upsets me when I can’t remember my sources.)

[Moose-tache]

Conspiracy theories are fascinating, and in turn generate a lot of explanations from people observing them from the outside. I will add to the cacophony with my own notion of what CT are and what they do.

To me, the most defining feature of a conspiracy theory is not that it's wrong or idiotic or counter culture, or whatever. It's what I call the inversion of authenticity. Let's start with the premise that powerful people exist. Now let's posit that these powerful people have a vested interest in controlling what you know and believe. So far, I think this is very reasonable. This is why I will never be able to fully trust a Washington Post article about Amazon, now that it's owned by the founder of Amazon. Power erodes trust, especially when it comes to the mass dissemination of media.

The inversion of authenticity happens when you take this principle to its natural conclusion, and assume that the trustworthiness of all information is dependent on the amount of authority the creator has over you. Anything you read on a website run by some guy from Topeka will automatically be more trustworthy than a website run by the government. If the government says two plus two equals four, this casts doubt on all of mathematics. If TopekaTruther.tv says two plus two equals five, well they have no reason to lie and every reason to bring the truth to light.

This is all perfectly transferable, because the government, newspapers, universities, celebrities, etc., are simultaneously lying about everything, so you don't really need to pick one lie and only be interested in that. And you don't ever have to worry about conflicts of interest, because the bad guys are always winning. No one who is good and honest is ever going to be allowed into a position of authority. This is why Trump, Musk, and others are such complicated figures: if they enter the emerald city and don't pull back the curtain, they have to be corrupted somehow.

The point I'm trying to make is, people aren't into conspiracy theories because they are tragically just stupider than us. All of this is internally consistent and based on a set of relatively sensible premises. I've seen this play out on a large scale in other contexts. I was living in a dictatorship when Covid started, and literally everyone assumed that whatever the government said must be the exact opposite of what's happening, even when the government just repeated WHO findings, because everyone knows you can't trust the government (which in that context, was largely true). Conspiracy theories will seem more and more logical as things like press freedom and media responsibility decay even further in the US. CT can't be reduced by wising up to the truth and being a smarty smart. It's a natural human reaction to a real phenomenon, and can only be addressed through society-wide information reform.

[zompist]

I don't really disagree with Moose's analysis, but I'd put it in simpler terms, which I borrow from a comic book writer: People like conspiracy theories because it's comforting to think that someone smart is in charge. Evil, but human or with a human-like mind (to take care of supernatural or alien beings). We are social primates and anthropomorphizing lets us use (or abuse) the considerable powers we have of analyzing other humans. It's much harder to accept that events are mostly random or muddled or out of anyone's real control.

I'd also add that most conspiracy nuts get their knowledge the way most people do: from books, or anchormen, or politicians on Their Side, or trusted people like their pastor or their cousin. You can't argue them out of their ideas unless you can make them doubt every single one of these sources.

Also, it's always been this way, except for a period about a week in 1974 when everyone trusted Walter Cronkite and hated Richard Nixon.

[Raphael]

Also, it's always been this way, except for a period about a week in 1974 when everyone trusted Walter Cronkite and hated Richard Nixon.

Yeah - I think I'll repost something I posted the the "reading, watching and listening to" thread about 17 months ago:

I've been reading some stuff by Arthur C. Clarke lately, admittedly in order to distract myself from the state of the world. Some of his writings haven't aged well, and I wouldn't really recommend him, given that you sometimes come across individual passages that are quite offensive. But, that said, some passages hold up pretty well. A short essay with the title "The Lunatic Fringe", written apparently at some point in the 1960s or 1970s and published in the non-fiction collection "Voices from the Sky", contains passages that sound eerily prescient in the Covid-19 era:

You may feel that this is making too much of something that affects only a small part (one hopes) of the total population. It is true that in the past crankiness and eccentricity did little harm, and even added a certain spice to society. A generation ago, flat-Earthers, end-of-the-World cultists, and disciples of weird religions caused no embarrassment outside their immediate circle. But we are moving now into a complex and perilous age, where credulity and superstition are luxuries that can no longer be afforded. For consider this example:

In 1843, fifty thousand followers of the prophet William Miller gathered on New England hilltops to await the expected hour of judgment. The advent of a great comet, its tail streaming like a fiery banner across the sky, seemed to them a sign that the end of the world was at hand.

Men are still watching the sky for signs of doom; but now they look into radar screens. And here is the important difference; the beliefs of fifty thousand Millerites could have no influence, one way or the other, upon the end of the world, but today, when we can carry the power of Vesuvius in a single warhead, the fears or delusions of only fifty men could bring it about.

This is an extreme case; but all forms of irrationality are dangerous, because in the right circumstances they can spread like a plague, infecting not only a community but an entire nation. Those concerned may be very ashamed of themselves afterwards, but by then the damage may be done.

You cannot build an informed democracy out of people who’ll believe in little green men from Venus. Credulity-willingness to accept unsupported statements without demanding proof—is the greatest ally of the dictator and the demagogue.

Forms of irrationality spreading like a plague, infecting entire nations, and, thanks to the opportunities of the modern world, causing a lot more damage than they could have caused in the past? Sound familiar?

A bit later, there's this:

Unfortunately, common sense has always been rather rare. As a reminder of this, let me quote two final examples of mass stupidity, which may also help to dispel the idea that it is an United States monopoly.

During the darkest days of the First World War, the rumor swept the length and breadth of Britain that troops were arriving from Russia in huge numbers (this was before the Revolution) to reinforce the crumbling western front. Thousands of honest Britons “saw” them at ports and railway stations, and millions believed the rumor, because they wanted to. And how did the observers know that these soldiers were actually Russians? Not because they said so—but because they had snow on their boots.

That little detail was the clincher, as far as most people were concerned. They never stopped to ask if even Russian snow would survive the long sea voyage from Murmansk to Scotland.

Am I the only one whom this reminds a bit of those supposed exposers of "election fraud" in the USA who claim to have proven that many ballots were forged in China by supposedly finding bamboo fibers in the ballots?

[Raphael]

There's now a new book about this out, Off the Edge by Kelly Weill, and I'm currently undecided on whether to buy it.

Pro: Conspiracy theories are a very important issue, and the book is probably about the ultimate conspiracy theory - the distilled essence of the platonic ideal of conspiracy theories. And, it seems to be the result of years of tireless hard work.

Con: I'm not sure if I want to spend so much time inside the minds of the people it's about, and it might depress me even more than the general state of the world already does.

[foxcatdog]

Presumably flat earthers are quite poor since they can't afford a round trip around the earth.

[Raphael]

Presumably flat earthers are quite poor since they can't afford a round trip around the earth.

I know you're joking, but, that said,

1) I'd say a lot of middle-class people can't afford round trips around the earth, either, and

2) the flat earthers have long built trips around the earth into their worldview. They claim that the world is a disc with the North Pole at the center and the oceans and continents arranged around it, like on the United Nations flag:



So they explain away people who travelled around the earth by claiming that they simply travelled in a large circle around the North Pole.

[Ares Land]

There's now a new book about this out, Off the Edge by Kelly Weill, and I'm currently undecided on whether to buy it.

Pro: Conspiracy theories are a very important issue, and the book is probably about the ultimate conspiracy theory - the distilled essence of the platonic ideal of conspiracy theories. And, it seems to be the result of years of tireless hard work.

Con: I'm not sure if I want to spend so much time inside the minds of the people it's about, and it might depress me even more than the general state of the world already does.

I expect something horribly depressing.

I watched a Netflix documentary, Behind the Curve on the topic. It was very good but equally disturbing. What surprised me is how sad it all is. I felt really bad for the poor flat earthers. At the end of the day, they're just very lonely, very miserable people and it doesn't feel very good, to say the least, to gawk at them.
Some of them turn on the others in pretty nasty ways besides. The few women are relentlessly bullied, for instance.

One of the worst bits is when a few of them buy extremely expensive equipment (some kind of military-grade gyroscope, as I recall) to prove the Earth is flat; they get exactly the results you expect instead.

[Torco]

about 30% of people believe in creationism, according to surveys. this number is different depending on the country: it's 2/3 in afghanistan, 22% in argentina, canada and uruguay, 40% in yankeeland, around 35% in colombia and venezuela, 40% in bolivia, etcetera. it may not be in the news cycle*, but it is, certainly, as Raphael puts it, a serious well-established phenomenon in society. I think the same is likely to happen with flat earthism: it's already 10% in the US and 7% in brazil. I'd call 10% of people believing X for decades on end a serious and established phenomenon, so, by my definition, we won't have to wait 30 more years to live in this wonderful world.

I think it's likely conspiracism [and nazism, for example] is causally linked with misery in some form, i.e. miserable people tend towards it. It wouldn't be strange: we're animals of meaning and social milieux, and if a certain ideology/way of life/religion/community/whatever makes you miserable, it's logical for said animal to seek new meanings.

*for whatever reason, ranging from it's not profitable to cover it to a more conspiracist, but not impossible, possibility that the owners of world media don't want it covered: it's only 6 companies that own most media in the US, and it's likely not different in the rest of the world. I know it's not different in Chile, but these are businesses, it could be that people just don't click on creationism controversies, and thus they're not a good way to make money.

[bradrn]

I think the same is likely to happen with flat earthism: it's already 10% in the US and 7% in brazil. I'd call 10% of people believing X for decades on end a serious and established phenomenon, so, by my definition, we won't have to wait 30 more years to live in this wonderful world.

I find those numbers somewhat unbelievable. I don’t believe it’s been rigorously investigated, but Scott Alexander has reported that the number of false endorsements of conspiracy theories can be anywhere from 4% to 33% depending on the survey, so 10% seems well within that range. I’d expect the number of actual flat-earthers to be in the hundreds of people.

[Raphael]

I don’t believe it’s been rigorously investigated, but Scott Alexander has reported that the number of false endorsements of conspiracy theories can be anywhere from 4% to 33% depending on the survey, so 10% seems well within that range. I’d expect the number of actual flat-earthers to be in the hundreds of people.

Ok, Alexander might have a point - see also: survey results showing unpopular politicians with lower approval ratings than various things whose real approval rating should be zero - but I still think "hundreds" is wishful thinking.

[hwhatting]

@Torco - there is also a difference between creationisms and flat-eartherism in that there are significant religious groups, among them growing groups like charismatic Christian churches, who endorse creationism while acknowledging that the earth is not flat. So I don't expect flat-eartherism to grow significantly, while creationism well may do so, especially in countries with strong charismatic Christian churches.

[Torco]

I mean, fair enough, surveys have their problems, especially when we're talking about very small fractions of people. if I was designing the study, I'd make it a multi-question battery, with hidden choice questions involving "what is the shape of the earth" and "had you heard about the earth being <shape> before" and stuff like that... but these things are rather expensive to conduct. Also, I've personally met unironic hollow earthers, and those are likely to be much less numerous than unironic flat earthers, so it seems unlikely that flat earthers are like 310 guys all in the US. in general, I expect the complexity of the proposed earth shape to be negatively correlated with number of adherents: look at the velocirraptor-shapd earth theory, it almost has no adepts. I wonder if there can be a shape so complex that the number of adherents is negative.

seriously now, flat earthism (or the varieties I've come across) is pretty religious too. have you seen mark sargent's hilarious series of videos on the subject? granted, it's about seven hours of unadulterated, high-grade stupidity, but it's also... you know... ethnographically emic, so to speak, in the sense that it's flat earthers talking to other flat earthers <or prospective ones> from a flat earther perspective, and so, it teaches us about the movement. sure, at the beggining they're all like "noo, we're scientific blabla, look" but give them an hour or something like that, and it quickly becomes "THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE EARTH IS FLAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW GOD" or whatever.

Granted, this isn't the same as being the official doctrine of various large religious movements/groups/institutions. But who knows, man, flat earth has been here so long, it may give us a surprise yet. Still, I think the main thing is... what do we mean by a serious, well established phenomenon? like, a serious social problem? if so... yeah, it doesn't seem likely that it will be, most people are not prepared to take anything serious if it's followed by "because the earth is flat" in the sense they do for "because god".

[Ares Land]

Also, I've personally met unironic hollow earthers, and those are likely to be much less numerous than unironic flat earthers,

Oh, I've met hollow earthers too! Also 'moon landing is fake' folks are a dime a dozen. I haven't met any flat earthers so far.

Flat earthism feels extreme to me, for some reason. I don't think I can really justify that feeling rationally: I've met people who are earnestly convinced high ranking masons sacrifice children.

The flat earth thing (flatism?) is fairly innocuous though, unless you're designing satellites. The kind of people who believe pedophile nazis masons secretly rule the world are a lot more dangerous.