Reason: The Flat Earth Models Contrasted to the Spherical Earth Model

We Look at Epistemic Integrity Versus Collapse with Respect to the Rather Absurd Assertions of the Flat Earth Contingent

Author’s Preface

I am still trying to understand the mystery of thought and argumentation. Here is an example of pathological thought, quite inexplicable I find. I still find the persuasion and story telling metaphor to be about right. Lots of people can tell a story. That does not mean it is a good story.

A few years ago I read a book outlining the history of the flat earth idea in recent times. I was unaware that any modern human considered a flat Earth to be a possibility. Apparently I was wrong. This got me wondering how anyone could be so dunder-headed. However, an in-law of mine, never the sharpest knife in the drawer, flirted with the idea a few years back, so there you go! I turned to ChatGPT for answers (always risky) and after a lengthy chat, came up with this synopsis. It seems to be about right, though much condensed, and consistent with the book I read.

Introduction

There are numerous theories regarding the shape and structure of the Earth, each emerging from different levels of observation, interpretation, and conjecture. While the spherical Earth model remains the coherent, predictive, and widely verified framework in the sciences, Flat Earth models—plural, due to their internal fragmentation—persist among a minority of individuals. This essay does not focus on the social or psychological reasons why such beliefs persist. Instead, it centers on the structure, deficiencies, and observable patterns of Flat Earth reasoning in contrast to the spherical Earth model. Particular attention is given to key observational evidence, modes of reasoning, and epistemic standards. Historical cases such as the 1838 Bedford Level experiment are examined as early seeds of modern Flat Earth belief, albeit based on misinterpretation.

1. The Landscape of Theories

Flat Earth proposals span a wide and contradictory range of geometries and mechanisms. Among the most frequently cited variants:

• The Classic Flat Disk Model with a central North Pole and surrounding Antarctic ice wall

• The Infinite Plane Model, positing boundless terrain beyond known continents

• The Enclosed Dome Model, which includes a transparent firmament housing celestial bodies

• The Electromagnetic Sky Model, where the sun and moon are not physical objects but projections

• The Simulation Model, where the flat Earth is embedded in a larger artificial or digital system

None of these models offer a stable geometry or coherent physics. In contrast, the spherical Earth model describes an oblate spheroid, slightly flattened at the poles due to rotation. This model aligns with centuries of measurements, from Eratosthenes to satellite geodesy.

2. Observational Evidence and Trace Integration

While direct observations like ships disappearing bottom-first over the horizon are accessible to individuals, many supporting lines of evidence for a spherical Earth depend on broader systems of testimony and instrumentation. Key examples include:

• Eratosthenes' Experiment: Different shadow angles at different latitudes.

• Time Zones: The sun rises and sets at staggered times depending on longitude.

• Star Patterns: Visible constellations change with latitude, disappearing below or appearing above the horizon.

• Flight Paths and Navigation: Airline routes follow great-circle paths that are consistent only with a spherical geometry.

• Satellite Imaging and GPS: The behavior of satellite orbits conforms only to spherical mechanics.

• Lunar Eclipses: Earth’s shadow on the Moon is consistently round—only a sphere casts a circular shadow from all directions.

• Circumnavigation of Antarctica: Ships and planes trace coherent, closed loops around a continental landmass rather than hitting an edge or barrier.

The integration of these traces into a single framework makes the spherical model epistemically robust. Flat Earth explanations, by contrast, treat each piece of evidence in isolation, reject them as fraudulent, or produce ad hoc reinterpretations that lack testability or internal consistency.

3. Failures of the Flat Earth Models

A. Incoherence: The different Flat Earth models contradict one another. Some propose a dome, others do not. Some place the sun and moon at 5,000 km above Earth, while others assert entirely electromagnetic illusions. This internal fragmentation indicates an absence of unifying structure.

B. Inconsistency with Observation: Models fail to account for:

• Gravity and its predictable variation with altitude and latitude

• Tidal behavior driven by lunar gravitational effects

• Observed planetary motion and retrograde patterns

• Consistency in satellite behavior, including communications and imaging

C. Ad Hoc Reasoning: Contradictory data are dismissed as fraud, illusion, or misinterpretation without a systematic method. No predictive framework is offered; instead, belief is preserved through rhetorical maneuvering.

D. Absence of Predictive Power: No Flat Earth model provides superior predictive capacity. Unlike the spherical model, which anticipates phenomena such as eclipse timings or satellite launches, Flat Earth models are reactive.

E. Anti-Evidential Reflexes: Photographs of Earth from space are dismissed as CGI. Predictive success is attributed to manipulation. Trust is selectively withdrawn from all structured evidence.

4. Historical Seed: The Bedford Level Experiment

The Bedford Level experiment (1838) by Samuel Rowbotham is often cited by Flat Earth adherents. It involved observing a canal over a long stretch of flat water and noting the absence of visible curvature. The original experiment suffered from atmospheric distortion, lack of control over sightline elevation, and failure to account for refraction. Later repetitions with proper instrumentation confirmed the Earth’s curvature. Nonetheless, the experiment remains a core myth in Flat Earth lore, illustrating the tendency to canonize misinterpreted data.

5. Rationality vs. Intelligence

The persistence of Flat Earth belief is not well explained by IQ, which measures abstract problem-solving in artificial settings. Keith Stanovich and others have argued for a distinction between intelligence and rationality. Rationality includes:

• Evaluating argument strength

• Recognizing cognitive bias

• Integrating contradictory evidence

• Withholding belief in the absence of adequate information

Many individuals who subscribe to Flat Earth views may score within the normal range on IQ tests, yet fail consistently in domains requiring evidence integration, model selection, and epistemic humility.

6. The Social Dynamics of Belief Persistence

Reasons for belief in Flat Earth frameworks are multiple and likely include:

• Social Identity: Belonging to a contrarian group that defines itself against mainstream authority

• Narrative Simplicity: Preference for intuitive or visually appealing explanations

• Failure of Educational Systems: Lack of critical thinking instruction or exposure to model-based reasoning

• Epistemic Isolation: Inability to integrate across domains or assess argument strength

• Rejection of Authority: Trust inversion, where institutional expertise is automatically suspect

7. Structural Irrationality

Flat Earth belief is not just mistaken—it reveals a deeper failure in the machinery of reasoning:

• Inversion of Evidence: Contradictory data is reinterpreted as confirmation

• Breakdown of Coherence: Internal contradictions are not resolved

• Severance from Predictive Modeling: There is no way to test or apply Flat Earth geometry consistently

• Closure Against Correction: No amount of contrary data shifts belief

This distinguishes Flat Earth reasoning from common error. It is not an ordinary mistake, but a collapse of rational structure—thought gone systematically awry.

8. Conclusion

Flat Earth theories exhibit epistemic failure on multiple levels: incoherence, inconsistency, lack of integration, ad hoc responses, and rejection of structured evidence. The spherical Earth model, by contrast, is a predictive, coherent, and robust explanatory system supported by independent and converging lines of evidence.

Understanding Flat Earth belief is not just a matter of dismissing silly claims—it is a study in how reason can collapse, how the tools of inference and evaluation can be present in form but absent in function. It reveals the fragility of rationality, and how easily belief can become disconnected from explanatory structure. This is what makes it not merely incorrect, but astonishing.

References

Eratosthenes. (3rd century BCE). Measurement of Earth's circumference. In Strabo, Geographica.

Garwood, C. (2007). Flat Earth: The history of an infamous idea. Thomas Dunne Books.

Rowbotham, S. (1865). Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe. London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.

Stanovich, K. E. (2011). Rationality and the reflective mind. Oxford University Press.

NASA. (2023). Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS). https://earthdata.nasa.gov

Russell, J. B. (1997). Inventing the flat Earth: Columbus and modern historians. Praeger.

Tyson, N. D. (2017). Astrophysics for people in a hurry. W. W. Norton & Company.

Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House.