Maybe opposition really is the point

Yes, there are still folks in our world who declare—publicly and without obvious embarrassment—that the earth really and truly is, as it seems to superficial observation, flattish.  Most of us with a serviceable elementary education are not sure what to make of such people, or whether to take them seriously at all.  Could they really hold to such a belief in the face of easily-available evidence or reasonably-accessible experiential arguments?  Are they desperate for attention?  Or merely social misfits, relishing the opportunity of trolling and wasting our time?  Perhaps the flat-earth movement is nothing but an elaborate prank.  This might explain its odd persistence.  But though it may be true of some adherents, it seems not to be the case for all of them.  It is dangerous to assume that all flat-earthers have exactly the same motives, as is the case with any other sort of unaccountable belief.  Perhaps some really do believe as they say.

So let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that a few of them are sincere.  Do they believe because they have been persuaded by some hitherto unconsidered line of reasoning?  Perhaps they have examined the range of available evidences for the flat-earth hypothesis and the various alternatives (since a sphere is not the only one), soberly weighed the various logical and physical implications of the rival models and concluded that the preponderance of evidence and of reason leads to belief in a flattish earth.  Or perhaps they have discovered a novel explanation for how one travels by sea eastward from Chesapeake Bay and then by land and then by sea again and eventually washes up on the coast of California near San Francisco.  Perhaps they have figured out how one flies more efficiently from Seattle to Dublin by way of arctic latitudes than by following a simple, straight line as on their two-dimensional maps.  Perhaps they have developed a practical and testable alternative to the prevailing theory of universal gravitation, which would certainly be imperiled if the earth were other than spherical, together with all hope of space travel or satellite communication.

Or perhaps they have not done any such reasoning, but have rejected the notion of a spherical earth because of nagging or unresolved perplexities.  If the earth is round, why don’t we readily see the curve of the horizon?  The concept of a global-shaped earth, after all, is not very obvious to earth-bound observers, perhaps counter-intuitive to someone not accustomed to the idea from childhood.  In this case, they have accepted a flat earth less on its own merits than because of a revulsion against the indigestible alternative.  They might well point out that most people who mock them have failed to pursue serious investigations or offered any solid reason for their belief in a spherical earth.  Those sort of people are just sheep following the crowd.

Indeed, there seems to be a lot of crowd-following going on.  One might marvel at the odd fact that Hindu believers tend to be surrounded by a lot of other Hindu believers, that Roman Catholics tend to have had a Catholic upbringing, that outwardly-pious Muslims tend to live in Muslim-majority states.  Belief loves company.  The easiest sort of belief to believe in is one that faces the least opposition, usually because everyone else in your neighborhood already professes the same belief.  From that perspective, one might persuasively argue that majority opinion is actually the laziest sort of belief.  Such prevailing opinions are easy but not especially admirable.  The more courageous stance would be the unpopular one.  And the more unpopular the belief in question, the more courage would be required.  For those who wish to display their virtue and their courage—that is, their willingness to defy easy and popular support—the beliefs that are furthest from common sense and moderation would be the most attractive.

It is conceivable then that those who profess belief in a flat earth do so not for the evidence but for the company.  And what glorious company!  What a select assembly!  These few brave souls have no wish to be among the comfortable majority.  They prefer to be among the self-gathered minority, the courageous elite, the enlightened handful who have risen above the delusions of the sheep-minded majority.  Perhaps they are not very sure that they themselves are blessed with extraordinary insight and courage.  But they enjoy being near the ones who obviously are.  They admire the courageous mavericks who are so certain of their truth that they defy the complacent masses and risk persecution for the sake of righteousness.  Merely to bask in this reflected light might be enough to carry them to righteousness too.  The further from the norm these heroes are, the more worthy of being followed.  And their unmistakable certainty relieves their admirers of the burden of having to do the hard thinking for themselves.

There is a compelling sort of identity to be earned in opposition.  But perhaps the best opposition of all is to be on the side of a righteous minority that presents itself as a silent majority.  (Or else a boastful majority that thinks it’s a virtuous minority.)  Safe in a crowd.  Yet courageously among the defiant few.  Populist politicians know exactly how to find such supporters—even to manufacture them.  They can be called the true patriots, the restorers of lost national glory.  They can be for cancer research while remaining defiantly anti-vax.

There have always been those who have dissented from the majority, and a good thing too.  These are the ones who propel history forward.  A healthy society needs counter-majority voices, dissenters, whistleblowers, even a few nutters.  Some of them may turn out to be right, if only a very very few.  Civil society itself and all our modern comforts have been built upon counter-intuitive notions—free speech, toleration, global trade, criticism of authority, equality of strangers, the rights of the oppressed.  All profound accomplishments, yet deeply unpopular.

Still, it remains a hard sell.  Almost everybody wants to be part of a society, to be with others like themselves.  But not everyone wants to be part of a civil society.  Strangely, though, civil society is the only reliably safe place for such folk to openly voice their peevish discontent.