From: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu (Robert McGrath)
Subject: Re: The Flat Earth Error
Reply-To: mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 22:14:45 GMT

In article <0!mm!h-@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes in part:
|> [...]
|> With respect to the first of these, the more I learn, the more I become
|> convinced that this thesis is a *crock*, a crock that deserves to
|> be broken, and I've already spoken my mind on the subject in t.o,
|> but without much documentation to back up my opinion.  Here is a short
|> book that sheds some light on the flat earth theory, and on this
|> thesis as well: _Inventing the Flat Earth_, by Jeffrey Burton Russell.
|> The relevance for sci.skeptic (I think) lies in the dangers of accepting
|> without question the common knowledge one is taught in school.
  [...]
If you are trying to convince me that scientists have a measley and
distorted view of the past, this is hardly news.  (Practically everything
that scientists think about the past is myth.)  If you are trying
to tell me that much of what I was told in school (ESPECIALLY about
ol' Chris Columbus) is myth, this is hardly big news either.  And
there is a large and growing literature about how the "medieval world"
was invented in later years, and how the various constructions
served many purposes besides actually portraying "the way things were".

|> 	... But it became widespread conventional wisdom from 1870 to 1920
|> 	as a result of "the war between science and religion," when for
|> 	many intellectuals in Europe and the United States all religion
|> 	became synonymous with superstition and science became the only
|> 	legitimate source of truth. ...
I might point out that the period identified in your post (1870-1920)
are the "monkey-trial" years, during which science and popular religion
WERE locked in an intellectual war.  One can easily see how the equation 
of religion with know-nothing superstition could be made at that time,
and you can't revise the history of that period enough to make the
"religion" come out looking all that great.

The "Flat Earth" story, like all long lived myths, has a meaning beyond
its manifest content.  That is, it is the description of an archetypal
conflict between an individual with a new idea and "hide bound convention."  
Note, in this same time the development of the conventional image of 
the dinosaur as an apparently powerful but actually obsolete and doomed 
object.  This, of course, bears no relation to the story of real dinosaurs, 
but actually conveys a schematic story of the new replacing the old.  I note
that both of these icons have great meaning to the "rationalist" ideology
of capitalism that was taking deep hold at that same period.  This is hardly
a coincidence.

Mythophiles would say that these stories have a "deeper truth" even though
they are strictly false.  (I view them as intellectual short cuts:  they
convey a complex idea in only a few words.)

Smashing crockery is a temper tantrum, it might be fun but it accomplishes
little of merit.  The trick is to build better crocks.

-- 
  Robert E. McGrath
  Urbana Illinois
  mcgrath@cs.uiuc.edu

PS.  I heard an evangelist the other day put an interesting "spin" on
flat earth.  He cited a passage in the old testament (which I do not 
recall), interpreted it ("literally", of course :-)) to show 
that the ancient Hebrews knew the earth was round.  He then noted that 
no one else knew this for 1000's of years (until Columbus, I assume).  
This, he argued, showed that the Bible contains divine wisdom and the 
Jews were the Chosen people!