It's our mission as science communicators to, well, communicate science. And not just its processes and methods, but also the value and importance of science in modern society. But there's a dangerous line that's very easy to cross when promoting all things science: that science is all the things.

Let's look first at the difference between patriotism and jingoism. It's perfectly fine and acceptable to be patriotic: to love one's nation, its people, its ideals, and to strive to make it better. It's another to turn that love for one's own country into a hatred for others, to believe in its superiority over all the other nations of the Earth, and to use that belief to back aggressive aims.

Scientism is the position that science isn't just a cool way to learn things about the universe, but The One True Way, superior to all other paths of knowledge and understanding. Something along the lines of "If it ain't science, it ain't nothing." That science is capable of answering any possible question (or at the very least, arguing that the only questions worth considering are those that are amenable to the scientific method), and that humanity can safely discard religion, philosophy, and even the arts as relics of the past.

I'm not saying that it's our job to promote anything but science - we are to be clear, strong-voiced advocates for its value. But the people we are speaking to are real humans with real lives with real beliefs. The moment we switch from promoting to attacking, we stop communicating, and we've failed our mission.

It's so easy to dismiss "flat-Earthers". Most of my colleagues do so with a contemptuous smirk and "of course the Earth is round", sometimes following up with "you idiot". I myself usually respond with a contemptuous roll of my eyes and "I refuse to feed the trolls"...sometimes following up with "you idiot".

Or at least that was my response until an interaction during the last COSI After Dark, when a young couple started asking me about flat Earth and various conspiracy theories during my live planetarium show. I answered their questions, but after the show I realized that I probably didn't convince them of anything. Where was I going wrong?

I don't really care what a person believes; what's more important is why a person believes. If we agree on the "why", then we can debate the evidence and discuss the facts. If we disagree on the "why" - if we're approaching the issue from fundamentally different perspectives - then that's what we need to examine first.

After the planetarium show it struck me (and I apologize if I'm late to a common realization) that the question of Earth's roundness isn't a debate about facts, but something deeper. Perhaps a flat-Earther isn't questioning the evidence, or even doubting me personally, but challenging the system that I represent.

That line of thinking leads to some intense questions. How many times has science been used to lie to a group of people? To harm them? How many times have scientists been willing participants in that deception?

To put it crudely, how many times have groups been screwed over because of science, or at the very least the socioeconomic systems that promote and entrench scientists? Can you blame people for rejecting the entire apparatus altogether, and voicing that rejection in the form of flat-Earth theories?

If we want to honestly respond to flat-Earthers, I think we first have to take an introspective look inwards and solve the riddle of rebuilding trust.