[mysterymath]

I was just such a person. I was taught that being a YEC meant that we were the only ones who earnestly sought after the truth. The world was blind, and by rejecting a corrupted authority and assessing the world on their own we were more likely to arrive at the truth.

In college, I successfully took apart the arguments of the peers who tried to dissuade me from my beliefs. They weren't good arguments; they had no idea why what they believed was true, but I did. This reinforced my views more than anything.

But, this earnest searching for the truth also led me to take philosophy of science and religion courses at my university, and that was the first time that I actually learned the mechanics of what went into the scientific method, and particularly why that method tends to achieve its goal of arriving at the truth. My entire primary and secondary education had never contained an discussion of this, nor had anyone I'd ever spoken to known it.

I also came across the talk.origins pages (https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html), which contained the first full exposition I'd seen of not just the theory of evolution, but also the tremendous host of failed falsification opportunities that support it. I was pulled into a more correct view of the world kicking and screaming, by the same forces that had kept me away from it for my entire life.

I can't speak to how common my experiences are, but I'm endlessly grateful to those who didn't presume that there wasn't anyone like me out there. Admittedly I do have a stick up my butt about this, since it's a refrain I hear often. But I suspect that many of the flat-earthers out there are budding scientists in disguise, poorly served by their environment, and waiting to be freed.

[lisper]

You are my target demographic, so I would really appreciate any feedback you have on the entire series.

[mysterymath]

This is a bit tough I'm afraid; while I'm very appreciative of the effort, I don't actually like the parts of the series that I've read very much.

The overall complaint is one of structure; prose flows from one point to another without my being able to build a model of where the argument is going, where it came from, what's an essential detail, what's an interesting aside, etc.

It's a common fault in technical writing, maybe the most common in my experience. IMO, well-organized writing is a "parasocial" endeavor: there's a bit of mind-reading involved. One needs to get inside the head of their audience and try to predict their mental states. Why did they click on this? What questions do they have? What preconceptions would cause them to immediately close out? How can you answer those concerns as quickly as possible, and lead gradually into a more nuanced discussion (if they so desire). If they're not likely to desire it, can you convince them to?

The answers to these kinds of questions about a brand new reader should suggest a thesis. Similar reasoning about a reader who has read the thesis should suggest the content of an abstract. And so forth, for an introduction, a guide to contents, etc. After that, presuming some skimming helps too.