What motivates the beliefs of flat earthers? It's tempting to dismiss the problem by claiming all the group members are simply crazy, stupid or motivated by an ideology. But I think all these explanations miss the core cause: a growing distrust in authority.
I've vented plenty of times before about how the average person seeks truth through bad sources, and how misinformation spreading with 21st century efficiency is a culture defining phenomenon. But this post is going to be a bit different. Here I want to talk about what will happen when we cross a certain technological threshold.
Before I get started, let me zoom back out. Ignoring epistemology, how can individuals 'know' what's true? Well, for a statement like 'the Universe is 13 billion years old', the average person typically depends on truth being transported from the source (scientists with data) through multiple channels (media). This is an easy way to pursue truth, but it's not a reliable one since the message can be diluted or tainted along the way.
But have no fear! Even the biggest skeptic can still get access to the pool of delicious truth by either doing the experiment him/herself, or by directly reading the journals themselves. While this is a better method to pursuing truth, it's insanely impractical; there's no way I'll have the time or skill to look at the scientific journal or article for every single scientific discovery that I've been taught.
This leaves the practical person in a bit of a pickle. However, there is still hope. Even though it's necessary for the average person to rely on potentially flawed sources for truth, the risk of being misinformed is minimized by creating a hierarchy from all of these sources. So for example, if I wanted to know the GDP of Spain; I would be more likely to find the correct answer from the economist rather than some arbitrary YouTube channel. But how can we determine the reliability of these sources? Answer: you look at 1) the quality of the news source, 2) the consistency between other sources and 3) it's reputation for being right.
So far everything I've mentioned is more or less commonsense. But here's where it gets interesting! What happens when we cross the technological threshold where almost anyone can artificially create false content at an extremely large scale? Imagine if 10 year old kid can become capable of using Photoshop9000 which can create flawless video and audio footage of the president of the United States beating the shit out of a homeless man? If this happens, then our 3 point checklist for determining a reliable news source is rendered useless. If these high quality fake videos can be slightly modified and distributed en mass, then they will appear as if they are consistent with multiple other sources. Lastly, if there is a enough high quality, seemingly consistent, fake content pumping through the veins of the internet, then it will be practically impossible for any individual to churn through the statistics and determine accurately the reputation of a news source.
I call this technological threshold the truth barrier because if this happens scientific truth will become completely filtered on its way to the general public. And if that happens; 1) science will be be perceived as no different from any other faith based religion, and 2) all rational people seeking to pursue truth outside of their own experience will have bury their heads in the sand screaming "I don't know"
