Flailing with Flearthers
Don’t tell me what to believe
Or accept what I cannot see
Fuck you and your facts, I’m free
If you don’t like it leave
I don’t even wanna walk in your shoes, what about me? (Urthboy, “Flat Earth”)
We have known for millennia that the Earth is round. Aristotle, for example, argued that the Earth was spherical based on several (valid) observations, including that ships slowly disappeared on the horizon, a curved shadow appears on the moon during an eclipse, the sun’s elevation varies based on latitude, and a star’s elevation varies due to latitude. Eratosthenes (3rd century BCE) was probably the first to measure the Earth. He used variations in the shadow lengths at different latitudes during the summer solstice to calculate that the Earth was 24,662 miles around. Today, we measure the Earth at 24,900 miles. Even so, some early Christians rejected the globe model, including a 3rd-century theologian and a 5th-century monk.
And, yet, in the 18th and 19th centuries, a few Christian fundamentalists again espoused a flat Earth theory, and many of their specific ideas reappear in contemporary flat Earth models. In the contemporary age, a flat Earth Society was founded in 1956 by Samuel Shelton. He died in 1971 and the mantle was passed on to Charles Johnson. He headed the Society until his death in 2001. The Society fell into disarray. The International Flat Earth Research Society was revitalized in 2015 by Eric Dubay.
The fundamental problem is that the flat Earthers (particularly those of today) begin with a conclusion and work backward.
They argue that the Earth is flat, square, and covered by a dome. Further, they argue that science (and by extension, NASA) is a Satanist lie. They argue that the stars are just dots in the dome; they argue that the planets are just illusions. They argue that the sun and moon are tiny objects just 3000 miles over our heads. All of science (and all of NASA) is part of a multi-generational global cabal, orchestrated by the horned one, to cover up the truth of the flat Earth.
Now, let’s forget for one moment that NOTHING — no belief, no passion, no cause — has ever been able to unite the world. No cause has spanned generations in quite the way that flat Earthers suggest. Let’s just put aside the size and scope and utter ridiculousness of the claim. It’s a conspiracy and they’re ALL in on it!
Let’s look, instead, at the reasons behind the claim. Why, you might ask, does Satan (and, by extension, NASA) want to cover up the truth of the flat Earth? Because the claim of a globe Earth denies the existence of God. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, because it renders little ole me insignificant. You see, that’s their conclusion. God made Earth. God made me, and God made me special. Therefore, I cannot be a mote of dust in an infinite cosmos. Therefore, Earth cannot be one planet among many. Therefore, I need to work backward from my specialness and find an explanation that confirms my conclusion. Earth and only Earth exists; it is flat an unmoving. Space is a lie.
In order to justify this claim, of course, they point to Biblical confirmation. They cite chapter and verse where some ancient shepherd — with absolutely no sense of the size and scale of the planet — wrote something about “the four corners of the Earth.” And there you go. Boom. Proof.
And that’s the other thing. Flat Earthers tend to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. The inerrancy model of reading the Bible rejects the practice of reading the Bible metaphorically. No. For them, if it says “four corners,” then they must have literally meant four corners. Nevermind that any one of us would know that the expression “I’ll search the four corners of the Earth for the best cup of coffee” would be metaphorical statement. (OK, OK. Coffee might not be the best example….)
I understand the difference between correlation and causation. I’m not suggesting that Donald Trump caused the reinvigoration of flat Earthers. But they emerged at a (roughly) similar moment in time. Dubay revived the Flat Earthers in 2015. DJT announced his run for president on 16 June 2015.
Both are anti-fact. Both are anti-logic. Both are toxic. What would a society, based on literal interpretations of texts from ancient desert dwellers, a society based on the rejection of modern science and technology look like? If you’re thinking of the Taliban and ISIS, you’re on to something.
But, the questions remain: What to do? How to respond? How do we best combat the return to pre-Enlightenment ways of thinking and living?
Scientific proof does not work. They claim that if the Earth were round, then lighthouses would not work. The sailors would not be able to see the light. Nonsense, of course. We know the circumference of the Earth. We know the rate of curvature. We know exactly how far out at sea a sailor could see a 150-foot lighthouse. We could load a group of flearthers onto a boat, take them out to sea and show them the exact point that science and math had calculated. They simply would not believe it. Lies. Obfuscations. Satan casting a veil over our eyes.
They claim that satellites are a lie. They claim that we could not possibly put a satellite into orbit since A) there is no space, and B) we’re covered by a dome. And, yet, they post diatribes onto Flat Earth Facebook groups from their smartphones, while they drive their combustion-engine powered horse-less buggies using satellite-enabled GPS to find the nearest Hobby Lobby or Chik Fil A.
They deny gravity! GRAVITY!
I understand that, in many ways, they are a symptom. Not the cause. Convincing a group of flat Earth adherents wouldn’t solve much of anything. The problem is that too many people are post-fact. Too many people begin any argument with their own personal ideology. Certainly, in order to persist as a society, we need to be able to agree on certain, fundamental things. And not necessarily facts, but processes. We understand that math is a system that can consistently provide answers.
Oh, math and science are far from perfect. Primarily because they consist of people, flawed people, biased people. IOW, humans. But the process is designed to work through those flaws. The system still has a ways to go in overcoming those shortcomings. And in the meantime, science and technology can tell us to the minute the day and time of the next solar eclipse that will occur in Tennessee or in Guangzhou. We can rely on it. Science and technology can tell us when the next Halley’s comet will whiz past. Science and technology can tell us why some people get polio and how we can stop that from happening. And science and technology can tell us, to the inch, where their damned Chik Fil A restaurant is.
So, I flounder. How do you argue with someone who rejects logic? How do you convince someone who denies demonstrable facts? Pictures are fake. Videos are fake. Evidence is fake. Experiments are fake. All the work of Satan and his minions. Apparently Descartes was right — there is an evil demon out there trying to deceive our senses. Suggesting that their ideas are wrong won’t work. Showing them the difference between literal and metaphorical reading won’t work. Calling their ideas idiotic won’t work. Pointing out the irony of them railing against Satan’s technology via technology won’t work. They exist in an idiocentric, ideological echo chamber. And, yes, I am fully aware that they make the very same argument against me.
Adi Renaldi offers a series a “ways” to win an argument with a flat Earther. He offers tangible evidence that refutes their claims. But, as we’ve seen, that won’t work. Nikk Effingham suggests we can’t do it. We cannot convince them that the Earth is not flat. They must do it themselves. I have a hard time envisioning the scenario in which a flat Earther self-corrects. Paul M. Sutter suggests we just simply don’t try to convince them. It’s futile.
I’ve seen posts that (humorously, I suppose) suggest that “you can’t argue with stupid.” But that’s not it. The problem is that we are operating within two different systems: two different ideologies, two different understandings of the world, two different systems of truth validation. We have to bring them back into the worldview in which facts matter. They would argue that the two worldviews are incompatible. If that’s true, we’re in for a rocky future. Nevertheless, many, many people manage to occupy both. And that’s a start….
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of a book on feminist science fiction and editor of a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls.
