The shape of the Earth may seem like a trivial and settled matter. Yet flat Earth theories have persisted from antiquity to the present day. While easy to dismiss, examining their reasoning in depth provides an insightful thought experiment. It surfaces key tensions in how we relate to different sources of knowledge and information about the world. Flat Earthers’ skepticism forces us to confront questions many take for granted: How much do we uncritically trust authority and mediated information? Should personal experience take primacy over abstract scientific modeling? How do we discern which forms of consensus to embrace or reject? Exploring two divergent perspectives on Earth’s shape highlights the complexity of knowledge-building. It cautions us against both stubborn orthodoxies and radical skepticism. Crucially, it reveals the multiplicity of information sources available to construct worldviews – from scripture and senses to institutions and instruments. These sources utilize different types of signal, modes of transmission, and degrees of abstraction. Yet all contain meaningful information with the potential to both enlighten and mislead. Navigating them thoughtfully is among humanity’s great challenges. Doing so requires nuance in weighing and integrating different inputs. Thought experiments like this one illustrate the fundamentally informational nature of our understanding. Our knowledge of reality inherently involves processing diverse sets of signals into mental models. By examining edge cases that stress-test these models, we gain humility and discernment. This equips us to handle information in a complex world where truth is often messy and multifaceted. In that spirit, the following discussion attempts to unpack both thoughtful insights and potential flaws in flat Earth reasoning. The goal is not definitive proof, but rather exploring the role of information in shaping worldviews. Examining frictions between perspectives can unveil deeper truths. For the sake of intellectual discussion, one could make an argument that Flat Earthers have some valid critiques, even if their overall conclusion is likely incorrect: * They point out that much of our knowledge about the shape of the earth comes from sources we take for granted – photos, videos, maps, etc. We assume the creators of these are impartial, though they could contain baked-in biases. * Many people simply accept the earth is spherical based on what they’ve been told, not direct personal observation. In that sense, it relies on an appeal to authority. * Flat Earthers tend to value first-hand experiential knowledge and early religious/cultural traditions describing the earth as flat. They view modern scientific consensus as untrustworthy. * They argue that for the average person, the earth appears flat from their viewpoint, and many plane/boat travel routes don’t require a spherical model. **On questioning sources:** Modern science relies heavily on photos, videos, maps, and other mediated depictions of the world. Flat Earthers argue these are not impartial sources – they pass through the biases of image creators before reaching our eyes. They ask us to consider how much unquestioned faith we place in the infrastructure of image production. Though we may rightly trust these systems much of the time, their flaws become exposed in edge cases. This cautions against blind acceptance. Yet science also offers tools to interrogate sources – identifying distortions through controlled experiments. So while healthy skepticism is warranted, not all mediated knowledge is unfounded. The discerning viewer situates images in a web of corroborating evidence. **On appealing to authority:** Flat Earthers remind us that the vast majority take a spherical earth on faith – not from first-hand proof. People defer to the authority of science, unable to verify claims themselves. This is pragmatic for day-to-day life. But they argue that scientific authority should not be immune to skepticism. History offers many examples of consensus science being wrong. Yet following authority can also be wise. As individuals we cannot reproduce all human knowledge from scratch. There is necessarily a role for trusting expertise. The trick is discerning when that trust is well-placed. Both radical skepticism and blind deference have risks. Navigating them requires nuance in evaluating sources of authority. **On valuing direct experience:** Flat Earthers favor personal empirical experience over mediated knowledge. This resonates with a common intuition – seeing is believing. They point out that for most human history, cultures conceived of a flat earth based on direct observation. Scientific modeling requires abstraction from tangible experience. Are we too quick to dismiss the prima facie evidence of our senses? But science reveals our senses are easy to fool – they do not penetrate to fundamental realities. While personal experience provides an important touchstone, sole reliance on it risks missing deeper truths that indirect methods can unveil. Integrating multiple ways of knowing seems wise. **On distrusting scientific consensus:** Flat Earthers view science as an elite orthodoxy rather than impartial inquiry. They argue dissenting perspectives are often dismissed out of hand or ridiculed. History lends credence – scientific consensus has at times privileged the views of the powerful. Yet science at its best provides tools to systematically overcome human biases. The iterative process of hypothesizing, predicting, testing and revising builds reliable knowledge. While healthy skepticism is important, dismissing consensus science risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Discernment again seems key – neither blind acceptance nor blanket rejection. There is overwhelming scientific evidence for earth being spherical based on observations of eclipses, ships disappearing over the horizon, seeing different constellations from different latitudes, circumnavigation, etc. So a flat earth theory would require an unreasonable denial of robust and repeated objective measurements. Flat Earthers may have some reasonable skepticism about source biases, overreliance on authority, and the privilege modern science holds, but these do not outweigh the empirical evidence for a spherical earth. A balanced view acknowledges insights on both sides. The shape of the Earth is conclusively proven to be spherical through scientific observation. Yet the enduring appeal of flat Earth theories serves as a fascinating thought experiment. It highlights the messiness inherent in constructing knowledge from diverse information sources. Flat Earthers should give pause to even the most orthodox thinker. While clearly misguided, their skepticism toward institutional authority and mediated information asks important questions. It behooves us to acknowledge that even the most robust scientific consensus could potentially be mistaken. Public trust must be continually earned through transparency, integrity and openness to scrutiny. However, Flat Earthers also demonstrate the pitfalls of relying solely on personal experience and ancient interpretations. Our senses and traditional wisdom provide important footholds, but observing the world through multiple lenses proves critical. No single perspective unveils absolute truth; only the synthesis of evidence and viewpoints can achieve this. Ultimately, the quest for truth is one of perpetual unfinishedness. Every age births new knowledge and creates new blind spots. To be open-minded is not to neutrally entertain all theories as equally valid. True open-mindedness involves continually testing and evolving one’s own beliefs with rigor, humility and discernment. Perhaps in this ongoing struggle, amidst such dizzying complexity, wisdom lies in the words of Socrates: “I know one thing: that I know nothing.” May we all be guided by such radical openness. The truth awaits beyond the horizon.