The Strange World of Science Deniers

“And God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.’”

The biblical cosmology, like many other ancient myths, described the firmament as a vast solid dome created by God as part of the act of creation in Genesis, meant to separate the primordial sea into two parts—upper and lower—and to allow the land to appear. The concept of solid skies above us was common to many cultures around the world throughout history. For example, the Venda tribe in South Africa believed that the stars hung from the dome of the firmament, or that they were simply holes in the dome through which the sun shines at night. The Egyptians, on the other hand, thought the stars were part of the goddess Nut, whose body, adorned with stars, was stretched over the earth.

A central underlying assumption in all these views was that the earth is the center of the universe. This view, known as the geocentric model, fits well with everyday human experience. The ground we live on appears solid, stable, and stationary. From nearly every place on earth, we see the sun moving across the sky, setting and rising once every day. The moon and planets also appear to orbit around us.

Philosophers of ancient Greece largely supported the geocentric view. Although in the third century BCE, Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric model placing the sun at the center, the dominant view was that of Aristotle, who described the mechanics of the universe as a series of hollow spheres nested within each other, with the earth at the center. According to him, the moon, sun, planets, and other celestial bodies were located on these spheres, and around all of them was the Primum Mobile—the “first mover”—a sphere that moves continuously, driving the motion of the others. The Greek astronomer Ptolemy, from Alexandria, developed Aristotle’s model further, adding corrections that allowed for fairly accurate predictions of celestial positions. This geocentric model dominated human thought for many centuries.

About 1,700 years later, astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus reintroduced the heliocentric model. Others continued to refine it to address its challenges: Tycho Brahe made more precise observations than ever before; Johannes Kepler discovered the elliptical laws of planetary motion; and Galileo Galilei published his observations of Jupiter’s moons in Italian rather than Latin, making the scientific debate accessible to the public. By the mid-17th century, the heliocentric model was accepted as the scientifically accurate explanation of the solar system. Today it is part of a broader model in which the sun itself orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy, one of billions of galaxies in the universe.

Still, even today there are people who cling to the geocentric model. Apologist Robert Sungenis, belonging to the Christian apologetics movement, published a book proclaiming “Galileo was wrong!” He argued that the Bible and the New Testament are humanity’s only sources of authority, and any information contradicting them—including modern science—must be false. Alongside this claim, he used contemporary physical theories, including Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, to argue that geocentrism is scientifically valid.

The geocentric model also appears in the claims of some rabbis and religious returnees, who insist that everything in the Jewish scriptures is absolute truth. They, too, use scientific jargon to support claims contrary to science, providing a clear example of pseudoscience: theories that claim to be scientific but are not.

 The perception called the “geocentric model” aligns well with everyday human experience. Geocentric map of the universe from Iceland, 18th century | Wikipedia, public domain

What Makes a Theory "Pseudoscience"?

How do you recognize pseudoscience? A clear sign is that the explanations sound scientific, but very little actual science supports them—if any at all. Often, words that sound scientific like “quantum” or “energy” are used, but they have no meaningful relevance in the context they’re applied. Another characteristic is the claim that recognized scientific authorities or famous scientists support the theory, when in fact no such support exists and is unlikely to exist.

When examining the details, it’s often revealed that the proposed explanation is based on “cherry-picking”: deliberately ignoring data that does not fit the hypothesis and selectively choosing only data that supports it. Unlike real science, which strives to address all data—including those that challenge the hypothesis—pseudoscience chooses to ignore anything that might contradict the preferred narrative. Another common tactic is distortion of studies: using quotes from real scientific research but in a way that twists their meaning to make it seem as though they support the theory. In this way, sentences that did appear in the original source are taken out of context, findings are misinterpreted, and false logical connections are created between unrelated phenomena.

The central feature of pseudoscientific theories is their blatant disregard for the scientific method. Time and again, they reject peer review, controlled experiments, and other scientific principles such as empirical falsifiability. Often, this is accompanied by blatant accusations that “the scientific establishment” is conspiring to hide the truth.

Pseudoscience often originates from the realm of fringe theories—innovative hypotheses and ideas that lie close to the edge of scientific reason. Sometimes these are provocative hypotheses that have not yet been thoroughly examined, and sometimes they are ideas that have been ignored or rejected by the scientific community. When they detach from the tools of scientific testing and falsification, fringe theories risk becoming pseudoscience: cloaked in scientific jargon but in reality based on belief, anecdotes, or deception.

Of course, not every fringe theory is pseudoscience. Some were initially rejected by the scientific establishment of their time due to lack of solid evidence or excessive conservatism, but were later proven correct. For example, Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift was dismissed for decades until it became the foundation of plate tectonics theory, which now plays a central role in our understanding of Earth’s geology. Also well known is Dan Shechtman’s quasicrystals theory, which took many years to overcome skepticism and earned him the Nobel Prize. But unlike these theories, which were based on consistent, reproducible observations and data, most pseudoscientific theories lack a real scientific basis and are rightly dismissed.

Phrenology: A 19th-century pseudoscientific theory linking skull shape to human character and personality traits. A sculpture showing character traits and their location on the skull | Science Source / Science Photo Library

The Story of the Anunnaki

In the field of astronomy, there are additional pseudoscientific theories that partly draw on ancient myths. One such theory claims that the gods of the ancient Sumerian culture were actually aliens who came from the planet Nibiru—the 12th planet in the solar system, orbiting the sun once every 3,600 years in a very elongated elliptical path. According to the theory’s originator, the Jewish-American author Zecharia Sitchin, these visitors, called the Anunnaki, came to Earth about 400,000 years ago to mine gold to repair their planet’s atmosphere.

Sitchin claimed that during their stay, the visitors created the human species through genetic engineering—allegedly by mixing their own DNA with the hereditary material of Homo erectus, aiming to use the new beings as slaves in the mines. He further explained that a conflict between factions of the Anunnaki ended in the use of nuclear weapons, an event that can supposedly be traced in Sumerian poems describing the destruction of the city of Ur by a “bad wind,” and in the biblical story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. About 4,000 years ago, the Anunnaki left Earth, he claimed, due to the disaster of the flood.

Sitchin’s highly narrative theory followed in the footsteps of similar ideas proposing that human civilization began as a result of visits by ancient aliens to Earth. Proponents of these ancient astronaut theories, such as Erich von Däniken, author of Chariots of the Gods, claimed that there are references to ancient aliens in the Bible as well, such as the Nephilim first mentioned in Genesis, Ezekiel’s chariots, or mysterious effects attributed to the Ark of the Covenant.

The Anunnaki theory is a clear example of pseudoscience. Experts in the Sumerian language explained that Sitchin misinterpreted words to fit the story he invented and took passages and quotes out of context to create a story that does not exist in the original texts. In reality, there is no archaeological evidence supporting the existence of advanced technology in ancient times. If such a technological culture had existed, we would expect to find advanced metal tools, structures made of materials unknown at the time, and perhaps even remains of devices or spacecraft.

In fact, all findings available point to the gradual evolutionary development of humanity. Sitchin assumes that a genetic change made about 300,000 years ago immediately created modern humans, but genetic evidence shows continuity without any sign of external intervention or the incorporation of foreign genetic material. Finally, the existence of a planet like Nibiru, orbiting the sun every 3,600 years, is not supported by any astronomical observation. A planet of that size within the solar system would necessarily affect the orbits of the other planets and be visible in observations.

Sitchin’s alien theory generated much interest, especially in popular culture and science fiction. Its greatest exposure came through the television series Ancient Aliens, broadcast among others on the History Channel via the cable network HOT in Israel. This connection is particularly puzzling as it presents pseudoscience on a channel that is supposed to promote evidence-based historical knowledge. Today, there are groups of believers and even esoteric religions that have incorporated the Anunnaki or similar ancient astronaut ideas into their belief systems. However, most of the public does not take these theories seriously.

Flat Earth

The geocentric model survived for many years, partly because it successfully explained many phenomena we observe around us. It was eventually replaced when a better model could explain those phenomena more accurately. In that sense, its modern supporters might be considered more rational than those who claim the Earth is not spherical but flat. According to their view, the Earth is a flat, round disk surrounded on all sides by a wall of ice that holds the oceans in and prevents them from flowing out. Believers often claim that the sun moves in circles around the North Pole, which is the center of the disk, and that its light acts like a spotlight. They also reject the idea of gravity, proposing alternative explanations. For example, some think the flat Earth is accelerating rapidly, creating the illusion of gravitational force.

This theory also has historical roots. In ancient Greece, China, Mesopotamian cultures including Judaism, India, and among the Norse in Northern Europe, there were beliefs in some version of a flat world with a dome of the sky above it. However, even during the years Aristotle’s geocentric model prevailed, there was no serious debate about whether the world was spherical, because the evidence was obvious and verifiable. Eratosthenes even managed to measure Earth’s circumference with impressive accuracy as early as the third century BCE.

The rise of the internet and social media has greatly increased the number of people who believe in a flat Earth—a belief that since the mid-19th century was held only by a small fringe. Recent surveys reveal worrying data. According to research published recently by Reichman University researchers, about 6% of Israelis believe in it, with 13% among the Arab community and 4% among the Jewish community. In the United States, the numbers are even higher, with estimates suggesting that one in ten Americans believes the Earth is flat. A survey in Brazil showed that up to 20% of the population there believe in a flat Earth.

Beyond the broad and well-established scientific knowledge that disproves this theory, there are many other problems the model struggles to explain. For example, the curvature of the horizon is clearly visible when viewed from a high vantage point, and photos taken from space or the upper atmosphere clearly show Earth’s curvature. Anyone who has seen a large ship sailing toward the horizon knows that at some point the lower part disappears due to Earth’s curvature, while the upper decks remain visible for a while longer, until they also vanish at the horizon.

The flat Earth theory also cannot consistently explain differences in the seasons in various parts of the world or differences in the appearance of the night sky between the southern and northern hemispheres. On a flat Earth, we would expect all observers to see the same stars. But in reality, the southern hemisphere shows star groups different from those seen in the northern hemisphere. This is definitive evidence that observers face different directions in a spherical space. Flat Earth believers solve all these problems by tailoring separate explanations for each issue, even though the spherical Earth model solves them all.

Over the years, flat Earth believers have conducted several experiments aimed at proving their claims. Time and again their experiments failed and often led to conclusions opposite to what they hoped to find. YouTuber Jeran Campanella, known as a prominent flat Earther, was involved in some of these experiments. One was the “horizontal beam” experiment conducted in 2018 and documented in the film Behind the Curve. In the experiment, Campanella and his partners placed two boards with holes five meters high and fifteen meters apart, attempting to pass a beam of light through the holes. The film shows that the beam was not visible to the camera on the other side until they raised the light source, proving Earth’s curvature. Campanella’s reaction was simply, “Interesting… very interesting.”

 “Interesting… very interesting.” Trailer for the documentary Behind the Curve - 

 

Between Pseudoscience and Conspiracy Theories

Why do people believe in disproven theories like the flat Earth, which contradict the reality we experience daily and the extensive knowledge we have about the world we live in? Researchers specializing in the study of the flat Earth movement and its followers describe a conspiratorial thinking mentality: a psychological phenomenon in which people lose the ability to judge when to trust others and whom to trust, and when it is better to be skeptical. The internet and social media provide a platform where ideas can easily spread and supportive communities can be found, without the involvement of traditional gatekeepers who once filtered information reaching the public, thus accelerating the spread of such theories.

The flat Earth movement regards all images of Earth from space as fakes. It also questions the authority of scientists and scientific organizations like NASA, viewing them as part of a worldwide conspiracy aimed at hiding the “truth” about our world’s flat shape. For some reason, rival and even hostile space agencies and governments supposedly cooperate to conceal this truth.

In their view, scientific concepts like gravity and Earth’s circumference are inventions, and flights, satellites, and spacecraft are staged fabrications intended to deceive. They also offer explanations for the motives behind the deception, ranging from control over the masses, gaining political power and budgets—such as justifying NASA’s multi-billion-dollar budget—to a conspiracy to hide from humanity the existence of God, since the Bible never states that the world is a sphere.

There is considerable overlap between pseudoscientific theories and conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories have unique features. They typically portray an all-powerful evil group supposedly behind the plot. These are individuals and organizations with extraordinary capabilities, operating in a coordinated and meticulous manner to harm, deceive the innocent public, and conceal the truth. Often, their theory assumes an implausible level of cooperation involving hundreds of thousands of people, all displaying absolute loyalty to the conspiracy leaders and strictly maintaining secrecy.

Another characteristic is the assumption that nothing is as it seems, and no one or no source should be trusted—except, of course, the words of those who have “discovered” the conspiracy and now tell their version of the theory. This is essentially paranoid thinking, leading to any contrary evidence being seen as part of the same conspiracy, thus reinforcing the theory rather than weakening it. As a result, the theory remains inherently immune to any criticism.

The irony is that the more someone believes in conspiracy theories, the more vulnerable they may be to real deceptions, because their critical thinking ability is diminished. Believing any far-fetched theory without examination and verification does not indicate independent thinking but rather a surrender to all the cognitive biases and perceptions that humans are susceptible to.

The Challenge of Critical Thinking in the Information Age

We live in an era where an overwhelming flood of conspiracy theories surrounds us from all sides, alongside the exposure of real conspiracies—acts of corruption and fraud by powerful entities. The ability to distinguish truth from baseless conspiracy theories is more important than ever and particularly challenging. In an age where information is more available and accessible than ever before, the paradox is that it can sometimes be harder to tell facts from illusions. We have no choice but to be cautious and vigilant, to remember that not everything that sounds scientific actually is, to develop critical thinking, and to be careful not to stumble in the wrong places.