In the wake of the Artemis II successful moon fly-by mission, I start to think that Flat Earth People, or Moon Landing Deniers, do not believe it because they think it's impossible for them to do, or the thing is incomprehensible given our limited observation capability. Hence, they want some sort of "security in their thoughts" by rejecting the science.
When someone says, "I don't understand how X could be true, therefore X is false," they are protecting themselves from the discomfort of living with uncertainty. The human mind craves coherence. If rocket science, relativity, or orbital mechanics feel like magic, rejecting the conclusion outright restores a clean, manageable worldview.
Flat Earthers and Moon Landing Deniers often say things like:
"We've never seen the curve with our own eyes."
"No one can show me a live video of Earth rotating from space that I can't fake."
They elevate direct, unaided sensory experience as the only valid form of evidence. But science works through indirect inference—telescopes, photos, math, testimony of experts. To a mind seeking security, indirect evidence feels like a conspiracy.
Rejecting science isn't just about logic; it's about trust. Accepting the Moon landing means trusting thousands of engineers, astronauts, and governments. That requires intellectual vulnerability. Denial replaces that vulnerability with a fortress: "I alone can see through the lie."
That's deeply reassuring. It turns ignorance into a badge of skepticism.
There's also a pride element. If someone says, "This is too complex for me to understand," that feels like a personal failure. But if they say, "It's fake," they become the heroic truth-teller. Denial transforms bewilderment into mastery.
Quod non capio, falsum est! meaning "If I don't understand, then it's fake!"
It isn't just a logical error. It's an emotional survival strategy for people who find the real world is too complicated to trust. It isn't just stubbornness; it's a kind of epistemic self-defense.
