How to Analyze Information Correctly: Learning from the Flat Earth Theory

In previous articles, I discussed how to spot fakes created by neural networks. Today, we will continue our training and examine how to properly analyze information. For an example, let’s take something original—the Flat Earth Theory. This is quite an illustrative phenomenon that has gained immense popularity. Tens and even hundreds of millions of people do not rule out the possibility that the Earth is flat.

Here are the statistics provided by Grok at the moment:

• Active Flat Earthers (forums, conferences, content creators): 100,000 — 500,000 people.
• Convinced “The Earth is definitely flat”: 1-4% of the population in developed countries.
• “Likely flat” or “unsure”: Up to 10-12% in the US, less in Europe.
• Globally (very roughly): 50-200 million people “do not rule it out.”

For those who missed the hype surrounding this topic, here is a brief overview.

The Core of the Theory

Flat Earth theory is a modern conspiracy idea asserting that the Earth is a flat disk (or plane), not a sphere (or geoid, as science says). According to most variations of this theory:

• The North Pole is in the center of the disk.
• Antarctica is not a continent, but a massive ice wall (or infinite ice plain) that surrounds the entire disk and holds the oceans in.
• The Sun and Moon are small objects (30-50 km in diameter according to various versions) that rotate above the disk at an altitude of several thousand kilometers.
• Gravity is either denied or explained by the disk constantly accelerating upwards at a speed of ~9.8 m/s² (creating the illusion of attraction).
• Space agencies (primarily NASA) are allegedly involved in a global conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth.
• Most models also assume the existence of a dome (firmament) or invisible barrier above the disk.

How to Treat Such Theories?

If you have read my previous articles, you know that the first criterion for evaluation is understanding how much the information might affect you personally, or how important or interesting it is to you. In the case of the Flat Earth theory, it is enough to ask the question: does it make any fundamental difference to me whether the Earth is flat or spherical? If you are not involved in applied tasks and are not launching satellites into space, then there will likely be no significant difference for you. In that case, the most rational decision would be to ignore this topic entirely and settle on the option you consider most probable. This will allow you to save time and nerves on endless arguments and focus on more important matters.

However, due to its provocative nature, this theory might attract your attention out of sheer interest. Perhaps there are supporters of this theory in your circle, or you might want to raise this topic for discussion among friends. In that case, we move to the second point of our algorithm—verifying the reliability of the information using critical thinking and fact-checking.

I want to remind you of the principle of probabilism. You shouldn’t immediately deny or accept something on faith. We operate with probabilities. Even in matters that seem obvious to you. If the topic interests you and you want to get to the bottom of it—study the arguments of both supporters and opponents of this theory. Analyze the arguments for and against. Again, neural networks can help with this.

Having studied the information in detail, we move to the third point—determining the probability of how credible this theory is for you.

Why Do This?

These actions help us in several ways at once.

1. It empowers your arguments. This will allow you not only to get a complete picture of the topic and form your own opinion but also give you a huge advantage in discussing it. Agree, it is much more pleasant to prove your point of view using specific facts and figures than simply accusing an acquaintance of being an ignoramus who didn’t study physics well in school.
2. It trains your brain and critical thinking. When you dive deep into a topic, study facts, and analyze arguments from both sides, you learn to perceive information more objectively. This will help you in the future with other questions and topics that might affect your life somewhat more seriously than knowing the shape of our planet.

Although I am not a supporter of the Flat Earth theory myself and determine its probability as approaching zero, I like the very fact of doubting generally accepted things. If Copernicus or Einstein hadn’t questioned previously discovered laws, they would never have discovered new ones.