Saturday, January 20, 2018

Brockton Audubon Preserve

For a second time,* helping my son get volunteer hours for his Boy Scout advancement has paid off in an unexpected way.  On a temperate December day we went to open a new trail in the Stone Farm Conservation Area, finding a new wild place right here in Brockton.  As a bonus, the Wildlands Trust workers who organized the volunteers referred to a newer, adjoining property run by Audubon.  We didn't have time to visit it that day, but I found it the next.

That first visit to the Brockton Audubon Preserve was late of a cloudy fall day, so there were few good pictures.  But I returned this morning--a breezy January day in the 40s, with an inch of snow in many places still.  Though the city traffic was never far away, the wind covered the sound of it nicely.

Access is good but the parking lot small on Pleasant Street just west and across from Albany Street.

Signs inform visitors that the Wildlands Trust cares for the land, and that ATVs,
and hunting, shooting and trapping are all prohibited.

I learned a thing or two myself from the signs: the rocks that so bedeviled settlers
continued to emerge after the land was cleared due to frost heaving; fieldstone
walls made only of larger stones showed the land was likely cleared for pasture
rather than crops, since smaller stones that would have stopped a plow weren't an issue.

 Wildlands Trust people had been in recently to clear a big fallen white pine.
What would have broken this big tree off so high up?

Big glacial erratics like this one convinced 19th century scientist Louis Agassiz
that ice sheets once covered much of the northern hemisphere--only moving
ice could move rocks that large so far from their starting place.  This one is granite.

Three boardwalks carry walkers across stretches of swamp.  This one
is over a low area that will become a vernal pool important to frogs and salamanders.

Benches built of 2x4s could handle the weight of a weary rhino, should one come along.

At its southern end, the trail connects to another that follows the route of what I think is a 50-year-old sewer line.  (I don't think "BSS" would refer to a water main.)  An odd piece of art beside the trail.

Stump slowly being taken apart by little bracket fungi.

*Years ago, volunteering in Blue Hills Reservation introduced me to the AMC Ponkapoag Camp, where we have stayed for a week every August since. 

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

Flat Earth "Theory" -- Why? (2 of 2)

Answer to that third question: the Galileo spacecraft, in one of its passes by the earth on the way to Jupiter almost two decades ago, took a photo of the earth each minute for a full day.  You can see them here:  (I doubt long-range spacecraft ever carry video cameras since still cameras serve much better; even if such a video were made, it would be hard to see the earth turn at a true speed of 1/4 degree per minute.) 

Here're two more, even niftier, from the DISCOVR spacecraft.  The shorter one runs at different speeds, ending with one frame per day--in which the earth seems to stand still, wobbling a bit.  The longer one shows an entire year at high speed, so you can see weather and seasons.

This would be a clever argument, except there's no consideration of "circumferential" flights between, say, Santiago Chile and Johannesburg, South Africa--two or three thousand dollars
one way--which would, I think, be beyond the range of commercial air flight in a flat earth.  

 That "sky glow" is called twilight.  It goes away, you know--just wait a bit!

Probably a good many flat-earthers (Charles K. Johnson was among them)
are already predisposed to disbelieving the majority view.

Maybe the earth is flat--from a muon's point of view!

I considered the question of flat earth "theory" as a theory in an earlier post, showing that the only way to take it seriously would be to throw out much of the established knowledge of centuries.  I lay out a simple observational case that a flat earth is nonsense, here.  Nothing short of willful and complete blindness is required of a flat-earther.  I will justify this link because it's funny, and because it makes a point I hadn't thought of: flat-earthers acknowledge that the moon and sun raise tides in the oceans by their gravity--which would be impossible if water did not also exert gravity.

To believe in a flat earth is not merely to imagine we’d got something basically wrong (and managed to conceal this from the entire populace for centuries), but to believe the entire framework is a lie.  In fact, a believer must be blinded to the significance of even the simplest observations. 

In short, flat earth "theory" is the ultimate conspiracy theory--one that even most conspiracy lovers laugh at.  It can only be taken seriously if virtually everything else is a lie, promulgated worldwide and throughout history for mysterious purposes.  

Of course, all of the preceding takes flat earthers at their word as Seekers of Truth.  But if such simple and obviously contrary observations can send them into gymnastic feats of defensive thinking, then probably there is more going on here than an honest search for truth. 

A Boston Globe article traces the origin of our local man's radical distrust to a series of events that begin with the loss of his parents--leaving him with no immediate relatives--and launching him into the wild west of the internet.  By 2015, he "had begun devoting significant time and attention to an array of conspiracy theories."  If radical distrust, and hostility to established knowledge ("waging war on science," the Globe calls it) is indeed the key, why is such distrust and hostility on the rise right now?  Is the distrust of science? of "elites?" of authority in general?

Maybe these folk are simply the deep end of the more pervasive attitude of distrust that fuels and is fueled by cries of "fake news!" that come from respected figures that pre-date Donald Trump.  Or perhaps the problem is even broader, as the Globe suggests.  "Researchers have studied conspiracy theories, and what they’ve found is that we’re more likely to accept such beliefs during times when we’re feeling excluded, isolated, vulnerable."

"Clinging to a conspiracy theory, in other words, can be a kind of coping mechanism — a way to apply some semblance of control at a time when the world can seem markedly void of it. 'What we found,' says Alin Coman, an assistant professor of psychology and public affairs at Princeton University, 'is that it really goes to this notion of a search for meaning.'"

A hypothesis linking conspiracy believers to anxiety finds that "In lab settings, subjects induced to feel anxious and out of control...are more likely to latch onto the idea that big, conspiratorial forces are behind terrible events.  Believing that a powerful hand is playing puppet-master is more comforting,...than submitting to the idea that random, awful events are a fact of life,...  ...their general worldview is an even more important predictor [of conspiracy belief]. If you believe one conspiracy, you’re likely to believe several." 

These are anxious times.  As a school teacher, I, too, have noticed a rise in diagnosed anxiety in several area schools.  Have sources of meaning fallen away, or become perceived as irrelevant?  What new meaning can take its place?  Do we need the meaning provided by small, exclusive, group-thinking tribes like the flat-earthers?  If the cause is some sort of bias in our thinking, why does it affect so few?  Or is the seeming rise of flat-earthers simply one more consequence of the Web as a gathering place for people with unpopular beliefs?  Perhaps all these play roles.

A thoughtful discussion here tries to tease out the reason for the belief, adding a further possible explanation in "intentionality bias"--a tendency to ascribe motives where there are none--and a similar tendency to perceive patterns that don't actually exist.

When I think about meaning, I lean toward the very small--the small circle of people I love, wild nature and its fate on our planet--and also the very big.  I am moved to consider  the vastness, complexity, and beauty of the cosmos as we discover it.  Charles Darwin, in the famous closing of The Origin of Species, posits, in defense of a scientific worldview, that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Carl Sagan* saw an even bigger picture.  "The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself."

*He also said, We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

Flat Earth "Theory?" (1 of 2)

"...the first-ever Flat Earth International Conference drew about 800 people from across — not around — the world to Raleigh, N.C."  (Boston Globe, 11/20/17)

Recent news coverage of modern flat-earthers, noticed in NBA players, a popular rapper, and most recently in a gentle probing of a New England man by the Boston Globe, reminded me of my long-ago days teaching seventh-grade earth science. 

I had heard something of the Flat Earth Society, and its members' insistence that they were not moved by "hearsay evidence" such as the testimony of astronauts, or photos or videos from space (which could be faked).  This seemed to me a laudable spirit, and in one class project I tried to inculcate a little healthy skepticism into students who were accustomed to believing whatever they were told.  (I frequently fielded questions about UFOs from students who had seen a "special" on TV, for example, and also conducted nifty class experiments to debunk astrology.)  Acknowledging that direct evidence was more trustworthy, we therefore worked through a few simple observations available to earth-bound observers, culminating with students writing letters to the Society's then-president Charles K. Johnson, pretty much proving that the earth  is, indeed, round.  

My class focused on observations that did not require trust in others, nor expensive travel.  Students wrote that sailors have, for centuries, judged the distance to another ship by how much is visible above the curve of the ocean's surface with such terms as "hull down" and "topsails down."  They pointed out that in a lunar eclipse, the earth's shadow on the moon is always curved.  Comparison of airline flight routes with a flat earth map would reveal that international flights typically follow "great circle" routes that are only possible on a curved earth.  The stars visible in the night sky not only change though the seasons, but are also different in different latitudes*--which could only occur on a round earth.  (That bends the rule about limiting travel expenses.)  Delighted to discover that Johnson had married an Australian, we urged him to telephone his in-laws and hear that they were experiencing the opposite time of day. 

Neill DeGrasse Tyson posted a similar image, with a caption something like, 'eclipse the like of which no flat-earther has seen, ever.'  (Photo from

Flat earthers have answers (of a sort) for some of these.  A lunar eclipse is the shadow not of the earth, but of a small, round object orbiting the sun too closely to be visible.  (I suppose it's just a coincidence that the movements of this object coincide perfectly with those of the earth.)**  The apparent sinking of a ship as it nears the horizon is (somehow) the result of perspective.
Unfortunately, we never heard back from Mr. Johnson; I learned a little later that the organization was moribund even then, and Johnson himself fell on hard times, and died a few years after our letter-writing ended.

The curvature of the earth is, in fact, directly observable in some circumstances.  A hero of mine, Darwin friend and natural selection co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace took on a flat-earther in his own day.  The field of battle was a British canal that ran straight and true for six miles--adequate for detection of curvature under the right circumstances.  Wallace mounted marks on convenient bridges at fixed heights above the water and found that these marks did not line up visually, showing that the surface of the canal was curved.  (In so doing, Wallace won a wager, but the loser began a campaign of slander and filed a expensive law suit, and Wallace was never able to collect.)  The Bedford Canal is again a battle-ground, with newer flat-earthers declaring that the canal is, actually, flat.

When you look at the image above, other inconsistencies will occur to you!

I didn't realize when I was teaching seventh grade that most flat earthers imagined that the sun moved in a circle over a flat earth in which the north pole was in the center while the Antarctic formed the edge.  This would be to easy to disprove: the sun would move closer and farther, but never set below or rise above the horizon.  Their explanations of this simplest observation are the least convincing of a pretty unconvincing bunch: something about the sun's changing distance being exactly countered by some sort of perspective effect.  (Other explanations are simply gobbledygook.)  A non-mainstream site called The Creator's Calendar posits "Three Unanswerable Objections to the Flat Earth Theory."  It does a pretty convincing job, while treating adherents ("The Honest of Heart, as they seek for truth as for buried treasure") with sympathy and respect.

Nor did I realize that flat-earthers invoked Einstein to explain apparent gravity. They explain that, while some objects exert gravity, the earth does not; we feel instead the upward acceleration of the earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second.*** (Einstein, in his theory of general relativity,  showed that acceleration could perfectly mimic gravity.)  A nifty idea, except that, from a dead stop, the earth would exceed the speed of light in less than a year!  

(Image from

One of the striking things about flat eartherism is its skepticism of the entire scientific framework.  One of the key questions about any new discovery is how it fits in with established knowledge; a new discovery that requires overturning long-established frameworks warrants enormous resistance: it is much more likely that the new discovery is bogus, than that a much more-established and coherent framework is.  Believers in a flat earth must discard much more than simply recent space travel--the whole of astronomy and cosmology, universal gravitation, and even classical physics all go out the window.

That's because scientific knowledge is not a collection of disconnected facts, but a (mostly) strong framework in which major elements complement and support each other.  (One fundamental “break” in this framework has long concerned physicists: Einstein’s general theory of relativity--whose validity is very well supported by diverse evidence--does not appear to connect with quantum physics--which is also very well supported by diverse evidence.)  

But flat earth "theory" is not only inconsistent with this framework--it is also inconsistent with itself.  Objects have gravity (which explains their orbits), but the earth does not.  The sun and moon have gravity, but move in circles over the surface of the earth in a way gravity could not explain.  Acceleration mimics gravity for the earth in accordance with Einstein, but Einstein shows that no physical object can reach the speed of light (and even approaching that speed is very difficult).  The sun and moon either approach and recede without changing their apparent size, OR they behave like spotlights shining first in one place and then another--but without the visual appearance such a light would show.  And so on.

Why my quotation marks on flat earth "theory?"  Common usage notwithstanding, THEORY is the highest level of scientific knowledge.  Any theory must not only be supported by a LOT of evidence, but that evidence must converge from different disciplines.  (Evolution by natural selection, for example, fits this bill very well, since it is solidly supported by fossils, the anatomy of modern species, genetics, molecular biology, and modern field research.)  Finally, the theory must be in accord with established knowledge. (On the very rare occasions they aren't in accord, a scientific revolution is in order!  Such a revolution occurred in geology when the theory of plate tectonics overturned some of the underpinnings of geological thought a half-century ago.)

Scientific theories fit all three criteria: a lot of evidence, from diverse directions, converging toward an explanation that accords well with the established framework.  Flat earth "theory" plainly fits none of them.  

Why, then, do some people take it seriously?

*I remember seeing the Southern Cross (never visible from nearly all the continental US), as well as the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds (really only clear from the southern hemisphere) when I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Samoa many years ago.  But you don't need to travel at all: as the stars appear to move with the rotation of the earth, they do not "recede" out of our sight as they would if they hovered low over a flat earth--otherwise the constellations would appear to shrink; another simple disproof of a flat earth.

**If that isn't enough, orbiting objects move faster--not slower--the nearer they are to their "primary," so the earth could not possibly keep pace with a small object orbiting nearer the sun.

***propelled by dark energy, no less!