What Flat Earthers Can Teach Public Health Experts

What Flat Earthers Can Teach Public Health Experts

(Image credit: author by AI)

When polarized viewpoints and mistrust in institutions are increasingly common, how do public health experts engage successfully with the communities they serve?

Will Duffy’s “Final Experiment,” an expedition to Antarctica organized for a group of Flat Earthers, offers a compelling microcosm of how to reach those who are skeptical of mainstream scientific consensus. By examining Duffy’s respectful, evidence-based approach and the varied responses it elicited from participants, we can glean valuable lessons for public health professionals seeking to protect and inform.

Will Duffy’s Final Experiment

Will Duffy’s motivation for the “Final Experiment” was driven by a belief in the power of direct, empirical experience to address deeply rooted skepticism. Rather than deriding those who distrust NASA or scientific orthodoxy, he invited them to Antarctica—a locale whose unique daylight phenomena challenge many Flat Earth assumptions.

Organizing the trip was no small undertaking. Duffy had to coordinate with research stations, manage travel logistics to the remote continent, and create an atmosphere that encouraged curiosity. The group witnessed the 24-hour sun, known as the Midnight Sun phenomenon, and had opportunities to observe how the sun’s position near the poles defies a strictly flat Earth model.

Throughout the journey, Duffy’s main objective was not to force acceptance but to create conditions under which participants could compare their expectations with reality. Critical to his approach was an emphasis on dialogue, openness, and allowing skeptics the freedom to interpret their observations on their own terms.

This strategy—rooted in conversation and hands-on demonstration—resonates strongly with public health values. In the best circumstances, public health interventions strive to educate communities, address misunderstandings, and encourage active participation rather than imposing a top-down mandate.

Public health professionals often face challenges similar to those that Duffy encountered with Flat Earthers. Many individuals distrust “official” scientific channels, especially when evolving data or guidelines appear contradictory. The question becomes: How can we do better? The following methods, inspired partly by Duffy’s respectful expedition, offer a roadmap.

1. Educate, Don’t Instigate

One of the most visible fault lines in recent public health efforts has been vaccine hesitancy. Much like Flat Earthers, who believe experts are misrepresenting the world, some individuals question the safety and efficacy of vaccines or fear hidden agendas. While the topics differ, the root cause—a trust deficit—bears striking similarities.

• Explain the Methodology, Safety Record, and Testing
  Public health professionals can counter skepticism by breaking down exactly how vaccines are researched, tested, and monitored. Instead of using abstract language like “robust trials” or “peer-reviewed data,” we can concretely describe the clinical trial phases, the role of independent oversight committees, and the comprehensive safety record across millions or billions of doses.
• Demonstrate the Fundamentals of Vaccine Science
  Going beyond one-way communication can be invaluable. For example, demonstrating how an mRNA vaccine works—by explaining its function in simple, visual terms—helps reduce the fear of “newness.” In much the same way, Will Duffy took people to Antarctica, so they could see the 24-hour sun with their own eyes. When an individual experiences something personally or at least sees a clear presentation of how it works, the likelihood of persuasion increases markedly.
• Avoiding Ridiculing or Dismissive Language
  Above all, “educate, don’t instigate” means presenting the facts respectfully and empathetically. Adversarial or condescending responses to vaccine skeptics often reinforce opposition, just as belittling Flat Earthers would have hardened their resolve rather than changing their minds.

2. Avoid Strawman Arguments and Respect Concerns

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people became frustrated with what they perceived as ever-changing advice. Mask guidance, lockdown protocols, and social distancing rules fluctuated as experts learned more about the virus. To some, these adjustments felt like contradictions or evidence of incompetence.

• Detailing Concerns About Changing Guidance
  In public health, adaptation is a feature, not a bug. As new data emerges, recommendations evolve. Communicating this process transparently—emphasizing how science incorporates fresh discoveries—is vital to maintaining credibility. For instance, admitting that “previously, we did not have sufficient data, but now we do, which is why the recommendation has changed” can reduce the appearance of flip-flopping.
• Addressing Polarization and Distrust
  Polarized social media environments magnify distrust. If a public health official mocks those who are skeptical or asserts themselves as the sole voice of “the science,” it can backfire. Trust erodes further when people sense condescension. Instead, professionals can frame guidelines as a collective project: “We’re in this together, and we want to share what we currently understand.” This mirrors Will Duffy’s attitude of collaboration rather than confrontation.
• Public Health as Ongoing Learning
  Nothing demonstrates humility like acknowledging uncertainty. Throughout the pandemic, many felt their concerns were dismissed or minimized. Respecting doubts, explaining that knowledge is cumulative, and showing how experts update their positions with new evidence affirms the principle that public health is an evolving partnership with the community, not a one-sided dictate.

3. Persevere Even if You Face Resistance

Public health professionals sometimes become discouraged when their advice is not immediately embraced. History, however, offers a famous cautionary tale about the need for perseverance: Ignaz Semmelweis. In the mid-19th century, Semmelweis discovered that maternal mortality could be drastically reduced through the simple act of handwashing. Despite presenting clear evidence, he faced ridicule and ostracism from his peers.

Why was Semmelweis resisted? In part, his findings challenged long-standing medical assumptions, threatened established hierarchies, and required additional work on the part of physicians. Similarly, vaccine mandates or masking guidelines may threaten certain economic or social norms in modern communities. People may resist not because the data is weak but because the proposed changes are inconvenient, anxiety-provoking, or ideologically unpalatable.

• Maintain Consistent Messaging
  The Semmelweis story reminds us that correctness does not always equate to immediate acceptance. Public health officials must continue presenting their data calmly and consistently, even in the face of societal pushback. Over time, as evidence mounts and success stories multiply, a tipping point can be reached where widespread acceptance follows.
• Emphasize Tangible Results
  Semmelweis’s case gained traction only after other physicians replicated his approach and confirmed improved outcomes. Similarly, one of the most effective ways to combat skepticism today is to publicize real-world benefits: fewer infections, lower hospitalizations, or other measurable improvements. When individuals see tangible positive outcomes, the perceived gap between “theory” and “reality” shrinks.

The Varied Responses to New Evidence

Will Duffy’s Final Experiment provides a real-world demonstration of how people might react when confronted with evidence that challenges their core beliefs. On the Antarctic expedition, some participants ignored the evidence entirely despite witnessing the 24-hour sun; others acknowledged the phenomenon but did not shift their overall worldview; and, crucially, a few—such as prominent Flat Earther Jeran Campanella—modified specific beliefs. Campanella admitted to the error, noting that the “AE [azimuthal equidistant] map no longer works,” given his observations. Yet, he also maintained some lingering doubts, framing his experience as an invitation for further exploration rather than a wholesale conversion.

This variety of reactions underscores a basic truth for public health professionals: change is often incremental and rarely happens all at once. Even clear, indisputable facts do not always spark immediate consensus. Deep-seated skepticism may persist, especially when a person’s identity or community is built around a contrary viewpoint. Nevertheless, Duffy’s respectful and educational approach did open the door for certain participants—most notably Campanella—to engage in a process of belief revision.

In the same vein, public health professionals can expect a range of responses when presenting science-based guidelines, whether for disease prevention, environmental policies, or lifestyle interventions. Some individuals will outright reject the data. Some will partially accept it but remain hesitant. And some will embrace it wholeheartedly, incorporating the new evidence into their worldview over time. The key is to create a climate—through empathy, clarity, and consistency—where genuine dialogue can flourish and evidence has the best possible chance of being heard and understood.

By heeding lessons from the Final Experiment, public health practitioners can refine how they communicate, encourage trust, and guide communities toward healthier choices. The journey of shifting public opinion is rarely instantaneous or uniform, but respectful engagement, tangible demonstrations of impact, and unwavering patience remain the most promising path toward constructive change.