I thought this was an interesting and worthwhile endeavor for the same reasons you outlined. I often find it very useful to see if my interlocutors' arguments fail even when we accept their assumptions.
In terms of critique, I wondered why you moved on so quickly on the first question right as you got to a critical point! You were totally right to ask why parallel shadows would not converge but parallel railroad tracks would and I would've been excited to hear Mark's answer.
On that theme of satisfying my own curiosity, it's less of a science question but I'm perpetually curious to answer the WHY question. Assuming there is a flat-earth world order pulling the shroud over our eyes, I really want to know towards what purpose anyone would expend so many resources to keep that going.
Yeah, why DID I move on, when I got to that point with the shadows? It was a somewhat-involuntary reaction, sparked by a few things:
(1) I didn't want to go in for the kill — especially not on my first question to Mark.
(2) I was frankly confused with the idea the shadows WOULD be on the rails when photographed from above, but WOULDN'T when photographed (simultaneously) from ground level.
(3) I thought it was okay to compromise by laying out a specific test that people could do at home — and I thought that, as a science communicator, it was GOOD to show this.
If Mark and I do another conversation, I, too, would love to come back to this.
As to the why question, I asked Mark this in a (separate, unrecorded) phone call. And his answer was (typically) charming: he thought that it began as an innocent mistake. Scientists had thought the world was round, sometime in the 1950s (or something, you shouldn't trust my memory of this conversation too much) they figured out it wasn't, so they started fudging their findings so they didn't get embarrassed.
Mark emphasized how human this was, and even said that he could imagine doing exactly the same thing if he were in their shoes.
My instinct (and this could be bluster on my part as a spectator) is to NEVER let go until I get an answer to a pressing question, because I find those the most illuminating in uncovering insight into how someone thinks.
I too enjoy a good flat earth debate (McToon is the best IMO). But I think it's important to point out that these beliefs aren't harmless: since flat earthers by rule of thumb believe every other conspiracy that exist as well, they very often end up in some dark antisemitic corners. Basically this meme: https://i.redd.it/ehslwk0ryg4a1.png
Okay, so (FINALLY!) maybe we’ve found something we disagree on!
First, I think you’re correct when you say that people who believe in many conspiracies often end up in dark (and specifically antisemitic) corners of the internet. I’m embarrassed to say that I hadn’t thought about that. I hope that I’ve updated on the potential danger in any conspiracy theory. And, especially since I’ll be writing soon about the need to engage conspiracy theories in school, this is a super-important consideration. Thank you — and let me know if you see me making this mistake in the future.
But I think there’s danger, too, in emphasizing the danger in conspiracy theories. I’m going to take a crack at unpacking why, but I’m not sure I can do it well. Here goes:
First, the BIGGEST obstacle to helping people consider new ideas is when they believe the other side is evil and/or icky. (This is, of course, one of those points that’s been rediscovered in many fields: cognitive scientists talk about affective primacy, behavioral economists talk about System 1 and System 2, neuroscientists talk about how the limbic system is fundamental, anthropologists talk about tribalism, political scientists talk about how the rider is a great public-relations-agent and a terrible researcher… Egan might say, simply, that our emotions steer reason. Blah blah blah.)
Second, it’s possible to link EVERY idea to the dark corners of the internet. Every idea, not excepting the ones that you and I strongly agree with. Every single idea.
From this I conclude that if we want to remain open-minded, we should studiously avoid connecting views we think are factually wrong to adjacent views that we find morally abhorrent. (In some ways, this is part of what I was trying to achieve in having this conversation with Mark.)
But I don’t disagree that you’re right, and also agree that, as we help others engage new ideas, we shouldn’t be blind to what else they’re likely to stumble on.
Okay: where do we still disagree? (Again, thanks.)
I don't think we disagree. I think learning about the flat earth can be a good way to learn about physics and the history of science (I personally have learned a lot that way). I think flat earthers should be engaged in open debate, not blocked and cancelled. (I also think antisemites should be engaged in open debate.) I think those debates doesn't have to always touch on the darker implications of flat earth belief. I think it's important to be aware that antisemitism is widespread in conspiracy circles: I personally remember how I thought conspiracy theories were goofy, interesting but mostly harmless when I was young, that was false and I don't want to see people make the same mistake.
I fundamentally don't think people end up as flat earthers because they rationally looked at the evidence and came up with a different conclusion compared to the mainstream (most people don't become globers from that either, but some do). My experience is that many flat earthers are driven by a kind of narcissism or a need to feel special (which everyone has, of course, but some have more of the drive and/or less of the ability to actualise it in the mainstream). It's related to the thing that drives people into cults (and there are flat-earth cults that close the circle). Sure, this belief may be an obstacle to me helping people consider new ideas, but it doesn't make it false.
Now, it's important that there are spaces for contrarian people to have anti-mainstream discussions: that's how progress happens. I would like to see more of that. But that doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't do damage minimisation when such subcultures go awry. I see the paradox in the mainstream trying to cultivate good contrarians, but I don't think that it makes it an impossible or unimportant task on the margin. I think the best approach is honest and open debate, and I think the glut of high-quality flat earth debunking content that has been created has been an important factor in the decline of flat earth belief. (I worry that the internet has caused a kind of homogenisation of the non-conformists, and that things like flat earth acts like a moth lamp for people who would otherwise become the good kind of non-conformist.)
I don't think it's a strong argument that every idea can be linked to something bad. I'm arguing that flat earth has a (very) strong link to antisemitism, much more than the average idea.
I agree that we should keep our minds open, but that doesn't mean that we should be naive. Flat earth belief implies a global conspiracy. A global conspiracy comes with implications.
Interesting conversation! I think you were fair and firm, without pushing so much that you made him too uncomfortable or defensive when he didn't have a good answer.
A couple of ideas:
First, when he was predicting that the shadow from the two cans would bend to the right I think Mark's idea was that that sun is not directly behind the photographer along the railroad tracks, but somewhere up and to the left. This is based on the way the shadow behind the left can bends. I think in order to proceed with that debate you would have had to either take photos or come to an agreement about the location of the sun.
When looking at the flat Earth map, I think it must have been designed to bulge up in the middle so that the far side of the earth is in shadow. Antarctica on the map must be thought to rise to an elevation even higher than the center bulge- thus remaining lit.
I thought this was an interesting and worthwhile endeavor for the same reasons you outlined. I often find it very useful to see if my interlocutors' arguments fail even when we accept their assumptions.
In terms of critique, I wondered why you moved on so quickly on the first question right as you got to a critical point! You were totally right to ask why parallel shadows would not converge but parallel railroad tracks would and I would've been excited to hear Mark's answer.
On that theme of satisfying my own curiosity, it's less of a science question but I'm perpetually curious to answer the WHY question. Assuming there is a flat-earth world order pulling the shroud over our eyes, I really want to know towards what purpose anyone would expend so many resources to keep that going.
Yeah, why DID I move on, when I got to that point with the shadows? It was a somewhat-involuntary reaction, sparked by a few things:
(1) I didn't want to go in for the kill — especially not on my first question to Mark.
(2) I was frankly confused with the idea the shadows WOULD be on the rails when photographed from above, but WOULDN'T when photographed (simultaneously) from ground level.
(3) I thought it was okay to compromise by laying out a specific test that people could do at home — and I thought that, as a science communicator, it was GOOD to show this.
If Mark and I do another conversation, I, too, would love to come back to this.
As to the why question, I asked Mark this in a (separate, unrecorded) phone call. And his answer was (typically) charming: he thought that it began as an innocent mistake. Scientists had thought the world was round, sometime in the 1950s (or something, you shouldn't trust my memory of this conversation too much) they figured out it wasn't, so they started fudging their findings so they didn't get embarrassed.
Mark emphasized how human this was, and even said that he could imagine doing exactly the same thing if he were in their shoes.
My instinct (and this could be bluster on my part as a spectator) is to NEVER let go until I get an answer to a pressing question, because I find those the most illuminating in uncovering insight into how someone thinks.
I suppose there's necessarily a lot of overlap between flat earth believers and moon landing disbelievers. The latter was one I focused on in my Overkill Conspiracy Hypothesis post: https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/the-overkill-conspiracy-hypothesis
I too enjoy a good flat earth debate (McToon is the best IMO). But I think it's important to point out that these beliefs aren't harmless: since flat earthers by rule of thumb believe every other conspiracy that exist as well, they very often end up in some dark antisemitic corners. Basically this meme: https://i.redd.it/ehslwk0ryg4a1.png
Also, the prospiracy theories are too good not to share: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/04/prospiracy-theories/
Okay, so (FINALLY!) maybe we’ve found something we disagree on!
First, I think you’re correct when you say that people who believe in many conspiracies often end up in dark (and specifically antisemitic) corners of the internet. I’m embarrassed to say that I hadn’t thought about that. I hope that I’ve updated on the potential danger in any conspiracy theory. And, especially since I’ll be writing soon about the need to engage conspiracy theories in school, this is a super-important consideration. Thank you — and let me know if you see me making this mistake in the future.
But I think there’s danger, too, in emphasizing the danger in conspiracy theories. I’m going to take a crack at unpacking why, but I’m not sure I can do it well. Here goes:
First, the BIGGEST obstacle to helping people consider new ideas is when they believe the other side is evil and/or icky. (This is, of course, one of those points that’s been rediscovered in many fields: cognitive scientists talk about affective primacy, behavioral economists talk about System 1 and System 2, neuroscientists talk about how the limbic system is fundamental, anthropologists talk about tribalism, political scientists talk about how the rider is a great public-relations-agent and a terrible researcher… Egan might say, simply, that our emotions steer reason. Blah blah blah.)
Second, it’s possible to link EVERY idea to the dark corners of the internet. Every idea, not excepting the ones that you and I strongly agree with. Every single idea.
From this I conclude that if we want to remain open-minded, we should studiously avoid connecting views we think are factually wrong to adjacent views that we find morally abhorrent. (In some ways, this is part of what I was trying to achieve in having this conversation with Mark.)
But I don’t disagree that you’re right, and also agree that, as we help others engage new ideas, we shouldn’t be blind to what else they’re likely to stumble on.
Okay: where do we still disagree? (Again, thanks.)
I don't think we disagree. I think learning about the flat earth can be a good way to learn about physics and the history of science (I personally have learned a lot that way). I think flat earthers should be engaged in open debate, not blocked and cancelled. (I also think antisemites should be engaged in open debate.) I think those debates doesn't have to always touch on the darker implications of flat earth belief. I think it's important to be aware that antisemitism is widespread in conspiracy circles: I personally remember how I thought conspiracy theories were goofy, interesting but mostly harmless when I was young, that was false and I don't want to see people make the same mistake.
I fundamentally don't think people end up as flat earthers because they rationally looked at the evidence and came up with a different conclusion compared to the mainstream (most people don't become globers from that either, but some do). My experience is that many flat earthers are driven by a kind of narcissism or a need to feel special (which everyone has, of course, but some have more of the drive and/or less of the ability to actualise it in the mainstream). It's related to the thing that drives people into cults (and there are flat-earth cults that close the circle). Sure, this belief may be an obstacle to me helping people consider new ideas, but it doesn't make it false.
Now, it's important that there are spaces for contrarian people to have anti-mainstream discussions: that's how progress happens. I would like to see more of that. But that doesn't mean that I think that we shouldn't do damage minimisation when such subcultures go awry. I see the paradox in the mainstream trying to cultivate good contrarians, but I don't think that it makes it an impossible or unimportant task on the margin. I think the best approach is honest and open debate, and I think the glut of high-quality flat earth debunking content that has been created has been an important factor in the decline of flat earth belief. (I worry that the internet has caused a kind of homogenisation of the non-conformists, and that things like flat earth acts like a moth lamp for people who would otherwise become the good kind of non-conformist.)
I don't think it's a strong argument that every idea can be linked to something bad. I'm arguing that flat earth has a (very) strong link to antisemitism, much more than the average idea.
I agree that we should keep our minds open, but that doesn't mean that we should be naive. Flat earth belief implies a global conspiracy. A global conspiracy comes with implications.
Really awesome video! Both of you seemed like great guys, though Sargent has an utterly crazy view.
David McRaney’s “How Minds Change” is also a really good book/resource for these kinds of conversations: https://www.davidmcraney.com/howmindschangehome
Interesting conversation! I think you were fair and firm, without pushing so much that you made him too uncomfortable or defensive when he didn't have a good answer.
A couple of ideas:
First, when he was predicting that the shadow from the two cans would bend to the right I think Mark's idea was that that sun is not directly behind the photographer along the railroad tracks, but somewhere up and to the left. This is based on the way the shadow behind the left can bends. I think in order to proceed with that debate you would have had to either take photos or come to an agreement about the location of the sun.
When looking at the flat Earth map, I think it must have been designed to bulge up in the middle so that the far side of the earth is in shadow. Antarctica on the map must be thought to rise to an elevation even higher than the center bulge- thus remaining lit.