Precisely. Taking the flat earther example, if their able to miss so many obvious data points (some they can observe themselves with their own eyes!) then why would anything you say convince them? Someone who is capable of being talked out of believing bullshit is less likely to have falllen for it in the first place.

How many people could actually refute a flat earther? Or does the average person believe in a globular earth because “science” without detail or just because “everybody” knows it to be true?

At this point there are plenty of pictures of the earth, other celestial bodies, airplanes going round the earth and what not, so that anybody can see it and it doesn’t require any trigonometry or scientific knowledge. Of course one might not have personally flown around the earth or been part of an operation to take a picture from space, but the same can be said about anything. For instance how would you prove that your heart pumps blood? Have you seen it personally?

While anybody _can_ make such arguments, as you describe the evidence is abundant, do they in practice? The question I was poorly raising was: how many people can make a coherent argument making use of such evidence? I suspect many people have beliefs about the world not because they've reasoned it out, but because of the general cultural consensus. And thus if you critically questioned them they might struggle to come up up with the supporting evidence as you so easily did. What percent of populace is like that? Am I just be an elitist or is that a sizable cohort?

All you have to do is gain a few hundred feet of elevation on a hike and watch the horizon.

I've personally stood on the Michigan side of lake michigan and seen only the tops of the skyscrapers in Chicago while everything else was hidden behind the horizon. My dad showed me on a trip to Michigan when I was less than 10 and even then I understood the effect. You can even see it yourself on a clear day of you get a window seat on your next flight.

That's not even mentioning experiments you can do yourself right here on the surface measuring shadows to estimate the circumference.

Likewise, there are countless images of the Earth from space, and even the moon. Some outdoor will say they're all dates, but at that point if every single image of the Earth is faked, then how can you trust anything? That would require a conspiracy so vast that your own parents are probably in on it and you should trust no one.

I don’t know if this a serious comment or not but there have been photos of the earth from space available for decades. These photos show a globe, not a plane. Unless the flat earther can show a photo of a flat earth from space, they have been refuted.

I was being serious. But perhaps I wasn't being clear. I'm certain _I_ and probably most everyone on HN could refute a flat-earther (or at least present a coherent case that undoubtable would be ignored). The question I was raising was how many in the "general populace" could do the same.

I probably shouldn't be at this point, but I continue to be amazed by the inability of those I converse with (outside of folks in my tech-circle) to justify or explain basic mechanisms of how the universe functions - especially those that are usually taught at the secondary-school level.

I see! Thx for clarifying.

The thing with flat-earthers, covid-doesnt-exist or stolen-vote believers or what not is that they often have a collection of refutations ready for their opponents. And in my experience this often cause the opponents to exit the discussion because they now are one argument late and it becomes even harder to bring anything to the table and the effect is amplified with each refutation. The worst is when they use their list of examples, people cancelled, doctors that believe covid is a lie or whatever premade list they have. My take now is to not fight windmills, they will believe something even crazier soon enough and even forget about that one or just tame it enough to say "i'm not convinced but it is what it is"...

Can’t it be both? Surely it’s more difficult to navigate your way out of a convoluted, multi-layered false understanding than an erroneous belief about a simple fact?