DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

1

Defending the Flat Earth Theory

How Objective is Science?

December 5th, 2015

PHIL3422

Émilie Bevers

2 DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

2

What is science? What is reality? These questions have been of great interest to

philosophers for a very long period of time (and still are). A key piece in these questions is:

what are the requirements for a theory to be honoured with the label ‘scientific’? How do we

recognise a ‘good scientific theory’? And maybe even more the most important question:

How do we write one?

Different ideas about what science is and what rules should apply to science have

evolved through time. Philosophy of science is a rich study field that knows multiple complex

and elaborate theories regarding the way scientists should handle evidence and what is

science. To illustrate the difference between the theories that have been used through time

(the major theories that will be discussed are verifiability, falsifiability and Kuhn’s theory of

paradigms), the first part of this essay will be defending the Round Earth Theory. A theory we

have all been brought up with and we have been taught in school. The second part will be

defending the Flat Earth Theory; a theory that has been rejected by the contemporary

scientific community. Comparing these two theories will be interesting because nowadays the

Round Earth Theory is the only theory individuals learn about in school as being ‘the right

theory’. Challenging this theory is not done often because this theory is necessary in the

paradigm of contemporary science. By choosing this exemplar as a basis for this essay, it will

be possible to illustrate if science is as objective as most people claim it is. Using scientific

theories with a high (face-)validity (Chan & Schmitt, 19971), the Flat Earth Theory will be

defended in this part. The third part of this essay will be using scientific methods that are

applied by most contemporary scientists to illustrate how the Flat Earth Theory is problematic

for the contemporary scientific community. This part of the essay will include a discussion on

1 Chan, David, and Neal Schmitt. "Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment in

situational judgment tests: subgroup differences in test performance and face validity perceptions." Journal of Applied Psychology 82, no. 1 (1997): 143.

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

3

whether one can conclusively prove the earth is round and if objective criteria for science

theories can be established and if so, how.

Part I: Defending the Round Earth Theory

Contrary to common belief, the Flat Earth Theory has been rejected far before

Columbus set sail to discover India. Columbus did in fact not have a lot to do with

discovering the earth was round at all for his measurements were off and if North-America

would not have existed his staff would have starved before reaching India2. The reason

Columbus was discouraged to set sail to ‘India’ was not that it was feared he would fall off

the earth. This myth originated in a book by Irving, A History of the Life and Voyages of

Christopher Columbus (1841)3. This book was mistaken for a scholarly work while it was in

fact highly romanticized4. The real reason Columbus was discouraged to set sail was the fear

he did not get the distance right. Columbus assumed the Arabic mile and the Italian mile were

the same, while in fact the Italian mile was much shorter and the real India Columbus was

looking for was way further than he could have sailed with the supplies he brought.

As discussed by Ethan Sieger in his article Who Discovered the Earth was Round

(2011)5, in the ancient times, the sun was used to determine the earth was likely curved. More

than 2000 years ago, Erasthotenes, an Alexandrian scientist, received a letter out of Egypt

stating the sun there was shining directly overhead and shadows would disappear.

Erasthotenes knew in Alexandria the shadows would become shorter during the day and they

would be shortest at noon, but in no case was the sun overhead. Shadows never disappeared.

He measured the shadow a stick formed on the ground through the day and the angle the sun

2 Enterline, James Robert. Erikson, Esk imos, and Columbus: Medieval European Knowledge of

America. JHU Press, 2002. 3 Irving, Washington. History of the life and voyages of Christopher Columbus. Vol. 1. Lea &

Blanchard, for GW Gorton, 1841. 4 Russell, JB. The flat error : the modern distortion of medieval geography. Mediaevalia 15 (1993) :

337-353 5 Siegler, E., Who discovered the earth was round. Scienceblogs ‘Starts with a Bang’ (2011)

4 DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

4

moved in and discovered this was 7.2 degrees. In Egypt, where this identical test was done,

the sun moved in an angle of 0.0 degrees. This was reason enough for Erasthotenes to accept

his Round Earth Theory. He used these measurements combined with the distance (in stadia)

from Alexandria to the place the measurement was done in Egypt to determine the

circumference of the earth and was off by only 2 to 16% (depending on if he meant Egyptian

or Greek stadia)6.

Although the theory of the round earth has been around for a long time, after the

Middle Ages, around 1870 (Russell, 1993) the myth people in the Middle Ages believed the

earth was flat came into existence, mainly to illustrate that people in the Middle Ages were

not very smart.7

The Round Earth Theory has thus been defended for many years. The first key

indicators the earth would be round is the changing of shadows on the earth surface and the

difference between the ways the shadow changes in different places8. Further indicators are

the fact the moon seems round. Different sides from the moon seem to be visible on different

days of the month, suggesting the moon would turn and because the image we see of the

moon is spherical, this would mean the moon is round. The same goes for other planets we

see, their spherical image seems to turn and thus be round. Because it is usual to look for the

most simple and efficient truth system in science, this would mean the earth most likely is no

exception. Once the premise that the earth is round is accepted, everything seems to fall in

place.

From the point of view of verificationalism, a theory of philosophy of science

introduced by Rudolf Carnap, one of the members of the Vienna Circle, in 1935, the Round

6 Siegler, E., Who discovered the earth was round. Scienceblogs ‘Starts with a Bang’ (2011) 7 Russell, JB. The flat error : the modern distortion of medieval geography. Mediaevalia 15 (1993) :

337-353 8 Siegler, E., Who discovered the earth was round. Scienceblogs ‘Starts with a Bang’ (2011)

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

5

Earth Theory is a theory that is empirically verifiable. Carnap explains in his work Philosophy

and Logical Syntax9 that a theory is scientifically good if the theory is verifiable. Theories

about the existing outside world can, according to the Vienna Circle, be tested by using your

senses (empirism). This can be done with direct or indirect verification.10 Direct verification

can only be done with prepositions that are directly verifiable by someone’s present

perception. The statement ‘The earth is round’ can thus not be verified directly. The second

method of verification is the indirect method. A statement is true when a statement derived by

it can be verified directly using that statement together with other already verified statements.

‘The earth is round’ can be verified in this way: if the moon is round, the earth, also being a

heavenly body, must also be round. The moon is round (already verified) ; therefore the earth

must be round.

Verificationalism is a method that is still used by scientists to prove their theory. There

are however problems with it. Karl Popper suggests another method to define if a theory

should be called scientific. In his book Conjectures and Refutations (first publishing1963)11,

he suggests falsifying instead of verifying as a method to define scientific value. This method

does not focus on the positive evidence but instead allows a theory to be accepted as the truth

until it is falsified. Popper argues as follows: it is easy to find confirmations of any theory if

we are looking for confirmations12. Confirmations should only count if they are the result of

risky predictions13. Risky predictions are predictions that go against common belief14. The

more a theory forbids, the more scientific it is15. If there is no case thinkable in which a theory

9 Carnap, Rudolf. "Philosophy and logical syntax." (1935). 10 Carnap, Rudolf. "Philosophy and logical syntax." (1935). 11 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 47

12 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 47 13 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 47 14 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 15 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48

6 DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

6

is proven wrong, it is not scientific16. The way to test a theory is to try and falsify it17. If you

fail at falsifying your theory, you may view this as confirming evidence for your theory18.

Finally: ad hoc solutions for problems in the theory make your theory less scientific19. The

Round Earth Theory would not be a very scientific theory according to Popper. All the

evidence we have for the earth being round is conceived through confirmation. Although the

theory does forbid certain things to happen (ships to fall off the edge of the earth, shadows

that move in a different way than predicted etc.), the scientific community has never seriously

attempted to disprove the Round Earth Theory. The confirming evidence for the earth being

round is not the result of risky predictions. As we have established earlier, the ancient Greeks

already thought the earth was round and the only time the Flat Earth Theory was around was

when it was used to mock people from the Middle Ages20.

The third theory used to define if a theory is scientific is the theory Thomas Kuhn

suggests in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolution (1962)21. Kuhn urges us to realize

that science is not a matter of what theory fits reality best. ‘Normal’ science, according to

Kuhn, is the way a new theory fits the other theories that were already accepted by the

scientific community. Kuhn calls the system of theories that is used by the community a

paradigm. All new theories should fit this paradigm to be accepted by the community. If a

theory does not fit the paradigm but more and more evidence supporting this theory is found,

a scientific crisis starts. At this point, a new paradigm can be adopted. If this happens, the

system of theories will change and old theories will have to be reviewed or rejected.

16 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 17 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 18 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 19 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 20 Russell, JB. The flat error : the modern distortion of medieval geography. Mediaevalia 15 (1993) :

337-353 21 Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 2012.

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

7

The Round Earth Theory is a prime example of a theory that fits the paradigm

scientists believe in nowadays very well. Many other theories are based on the premise that

the earth is round and it is very difficult to find someone that does not believe in the Round

Earth Theory. According to Kuhn, the Round Earth Theory is science in today’s paradigm,

but it is not excluded that the Round Earth Theory will once be rejected after a scientific crisis

and adoption of a new paradigm.

The Round Earth Theory can thus be called scientific in any of the major theories of

philosophy of science that are discussed above.

Part II: Defending the Flat Earth Theory

Contrary to common belief, there are nowadays still people that defend the Flat Earth

Theory22. Although most of them probably don’t believe in a flat earth, it is still interesting to

look at their scientific methods and if it is even possible to conclusively prove they are wrong.

A large community of people still defending the Flat Earth Theory can be found on the

website of the Flat Earth Society23. The Flat Earth Society was founded in the 18th century by

Birley Rowbotham. His interpretation of a biblical passage lead to the conclusion the earth is

a flat disc centered at the North Pole24. The edge of the disc is defined by a ‘southern’ wall of

ice. Bowbotham believed the stars, the moon, the sun and the planets were only a few

hundred miles above the earth-disc. When Bowbotham died in 1884, his followers formed the

Universal Zetetic Society. In the United States of America, the Flat Earth Theory gained new

22 Bartlett, Albert A. "The new flat earth society." Boletín CF+ S 37 (2008). 23 Homepage Flat Earth Society, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ (accessed December 5,

2015) 24 History and mission Flat Earth Society, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-

society/history-and-mission (accessed December 5, 2015)

8 DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

8

followers and Wilbur Glenn Voliva continued doing research to defend the Flat Earth

Theory25.

On the website of the Flat Earth Society, multiple arguments for the earth being flat

and the round earth theory being incorrect are listed. To the argument Erasthotenes brings up

saying the shadow on earth changes depending on where on earth you stand, the Flat Earth

Society brings up the argument that in fact Erasthotenes was not concerned with the shape of

the earth. He wanted to use the shadows to measure the circumference of the earth and

assumed the earth was round based on previous works of Aristotle. The math works out the

same for the diameter of a flat earth (although the earth is much bigger in reality, the area of

the earth affected by the sun, our known world, is approximately as big as Erasthotenes

suggested)26, so his measurements were not wrong, he simply made a wrong assumption.

The second theory Flat Earth Society has problems with is the theory that because

ships disappear bottom first into the horizon, the earth must be round. Flat Earth Society

objects that humans are not able to see into infinity due to physical limitations, so we can’t

observe the end of the earth-disc. Instead, we see ships disappearing when our physical

capacity to see them is reached. This is confirmed by the fact that ships ‘reappear’ when the

human capacity is extended by the use of for example a telescope27. For ships cannot sail past

the southern wall of ice, that marks the end of the world that is visible to the eye28, you will,

25 History and mission Flat Earth Society, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/index.php/about-the-

society/history-and-mission (accessed December 5, 2015) 26 Flat Earth Society Wiki : Erastothenes on Diameter, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tik i/tik i-

index.php?page=Eratosthenes+on+Diameter&highlight=shadow (accessed December 5, 2015) 27 Flat Earth Society Wiki : Ships appear to sink as they recede past the horizon,

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tik i/tik i-

index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon, (accessed December 5, 2015) 28 Flat Earth Society Wiki : Ships appear to sink as they recede past the horizon,

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tik i/tik i-

index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon, (accessed December 5, 2015)

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

9

given the appropriate magnifying instruments, always be able to find boats back that

‘disappeared’ into the horizon.29

Photos published by NASA that show us the round earth and websites as Google Earth

where the earth can be seen from ‘all sides’, are according to the Flat Earth Society a

conspiracy. The Apollo project that brought the first man to the moon and the Mars Missions

are all fabricated stories backed up by fabricated proof by NASA30. Although the Flat Earth

Society does not know exactly what the motive of this conspiracy would be, most commonly

it is believed NASA has economic reasons to fake space travel.31

From the point of view of verificationalism, the Flat Earth Theory is as defendable as

the Round Earth Theory is. Using direct verificationalism32, it can be proven that ships do not

disappear into the horizon for if they seem to disappear you can verify using your telescope

that they are still sailing. This means they do not, as people defending the Round Earth

Theory would claim, disappear behind a hill of water formed by the curve of the earth. This

leads to the indirect verification of the theory that the earth would be flat. The fact NASA

would trick us into thinking the earth is round so that they could make more money promoting

their ‘space-travels’, is not easily verifiable. However, it cannot be verified to be false either

and seen as there is supportive evidence to be found to prove the Flat Earth Theory, defenders

of verificationalism would argue this theory can be verified and is thus scientific.33

29 Flat Earth Society Wiki : Ships appear to sink as they recede past the horizon,

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tik i/tik i-index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20hori

zon, (accessed December 5, 2015) 30 Flat Earth Society Wiki : The Conspiracy, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tik i/tik i-

index.php?page=The%20Conspiracy, (accessed December 5, 2015) 31 Flat Earth Society Wiki : The Conspiracy, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tik i/tik i-index.php?page=The%20Conspiracy, (accessed December 5, 2015) 32 Carnap, Rudolf. "Philosophy and logical syntax." (1935). 33 Carnap, Rudolf. "Philosophy and logical syntax." (1935).

10

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

10

In the eyes of Popper and his falsificationalism34, the Flat Earth Theory does not hold

as a scientific theory. Not only does it rely completely on verification35, the confirming

evidence that is found to support the theory is furthermore not the result of risky predictions at

all36. This theory does not restrict potential outcomes of events37 and it is not the result of

serious attempts of falsifying the theory38. Lastly, a large portion of the supporting evidence

for this theory is the result of ad hoc solutions of problems caused by contradictory evidence

provided by the Round Earth Theory39.

The reason the Flat Earth Theory would not be science according to Kuhn is much

simpler. The Flat Earth Theory does not fit the contemporary scientific paradigm40. It would

be very difficult to find a scientist nowadays that defends the Flat Earth Theory. If, however,

you would find a scientist that argues the earth is flat, it would be very difficult for that

scientist to find funds for research. This theory would not be considered to be science because

it wouldn’t fit the paradigm scientists believe in. Kuhn argues normal science is like puzzle

solving41. It consists of finding ways to solve problems that arise in the used paradigm. For as

of now there is no scientific revolution concerning the shape of the earth, this theory is not

considered science.

Part III: Why the Flat Earth Theory is Problematic and Further Discussion

The main reason that it would be problematic for contemporary scientists to believe in

a flat earth is that it does not fit the paradigm they use. Even if scientists did want to accept

the Flat Earth Theory, doing so would be very inconvenient. All theories that rely on the earth 34 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 47 35 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 47 36 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 37 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 38 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 39 Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge, 2014, 48 40 Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 2012, 43 41 Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 2012, 35

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

11

to be round (gravity, the structure of our solar system, the day-night and seasonal cycles, etc.)

would have to be revised. Because the Round Earth Theory is not problematic and seems to

fit the rest of the theories in the contemporary paradigm very well, no crisis about the earth’s

shape has formed (yet).

As Kuhn denotes in his theory however, there is no way to measure scientific value of

a theory by the way it fits in a specific paradigm42. If would very well be thinkable that given

new evidence, the round earth theory would have to be revised. If someone would sail far

enough and would discover it may have seemed as if they were sailing around the world but

suddenly they would see the ice wall, a crisis could form and the flat earth theory might be

considered scientific. Similar things have happened in the past when it was discovered that

heavier objects do not fall to the earth more quickly43 and the sun, not the earth, was in the

middle of our solar system44.

It is difficult to argue that science can be executed in a 100% objective way. Not only

do circumstances change continuously, the scientists that define what science is and their

views also do45. Even if there would be a way to tell that one scientist understood precisely

how a certain aspect of nature worked, if his collegues would not be convinced most

individuals still would not call what he achieved science46. It seems as though ‘science’ is a

human-made construct that we desperately try to fit in the mould of our world; a tool to

pattern the organic world into our structured minds. Maybe the world is not as predictable as

we think it is.

42 Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 2012. 43 Gunstone, Richard F., and Richard T. White. "Understanding of gravity."Science education 65, no. 3

(1981): 291-299. 44 Murray, Carl D., and Stanley F. Dermott. Solar system dynamics. Cambridge university press,

1999. 45 Kanazava, Satoshi. Common Misconceptions about Sciene I : ‘Scientific proof’,

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof (accessed December 5, 2015) 46 Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 2012, 4

12

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

12

Bibliography

Bartlett, Albert A. "The new flat earth society." Boletín CF+ S 37, 2008.

Carnap, Rudolf. "Philosophy and logical syntax.", 1935.

Chan, David, and Neal Schmitt. "Video-based versus paper-and-pencil method of assessment

in situational judgment tests: subgroup differences in test performance and face

validity perceptions." Journal of Applied Psychology 82, no. 1, 1997

Enterline, James Robert. Erikson, Eskimos, and Columbus: Medieval European Knowledge of

America. JHU Press, 2002.

Flat Earth Society, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/ (accessed December 5, 2015)

Gunstone, Richard F., and Richard T. White. "Understanding of gravity."Science

education 65, no. 3, 1981.

Irving, Washington. History of the life and voyages of Christopher Columbus. Vol. 1. Lea &

Blanchard, for GW Gorton, 1841.

Kanazava, Satoshi. Common Misconceptions about Sciene I : ‘Scientific proof’,

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-

misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof (accessed December 5, 2015)

Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago press, 2012.

Murray, Carl D., and Stanley F. Dermott. Solar system dynamics. Cambridge university press,

1999.

Popper, Karl. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. routledge,

2014.

Russell, JB. The flat error : the modern distortion of medieval geography. Mediaevalia 15,

1993

Siegler, E., Who discovered the earth was round. Scienceblogs ‘Starts with a Bang’, 2011.

DEFENDING THE FLAT EARTH THEORY : HOW OBJECTIVE IS SCIENCE ?

13

Other sources

Vsauce on the Flat Earth Theory, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs,

(accessed on December 5, 2015)

Geocentrism, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-

seriously/#.VlkHbcbbmn6, (accessed on December 5, 2015)

Disproving the earth is flat, http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-

a-globe/, (accessed on December 5, 2015)