K, Cronick
I like to argue. I have been trained by years of academic participation to argue propositions, to look for evidence, to corroborate evidence, and to defend what seems to be “factual”. I put quotes around this last word, because many accepted facts can be later refuted or modified. This instability does not make me anxious. Rather, I find stability in the very existence of scientific doubt, and the historical possibility to improve what we call knowledge.
I do not
like arguments in which people end up calling each other names. “What you said
is sooo stupid” is not an argument; it just reveals an existential need to be
right, to come out on top.
So, I have
made up a little game for myself. I am going to argue with a Flat-Earther. This
individual is an author, William Carpenter (1885) whose quarrels with science are a century and a half old. That sort of gives me an
advantage, but really my arguments can be based on ideas the predated him by a couple
of millenniums, so my supposed advantage doesn’t really exist. Furthermore, I
will try to argue on his level. That is, I will address his concerns from a
shared world of direct experience, without calculations and without evidence
from physics.
Me: So, Mr. Carpenter, you say that
the Bible mentions a flat Earth. Genesis talks about the creation in terms of up
and down. It says (Genesis 1, 8-7, King
James version), “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was
so.” I think a lot depends on the translation one uses. But whatever the
source, God could have patted the Earth either into a pancake with the “light” above
it, or into a spinning ball. Genesis is not explicit in this detail. Sometimes
people who defend a flat Earth use translation that mention a dome over the
earth, in which the sun and the moon were placed, in addition to the heavens. In
the King James version there is no mention of a “dome” over the water.
Mr. Carpenter: You cannot question the Scriptures.
You are a moral degenerate, a lost soul!
Me: I am not questioning the
Scriptures here. I am quoting them.
Mr.
Carpenter: Anyway,
even modern observations support the idea of a flat Earth. You rationalists
claim that the fact that ships at sea seem to disappear bit by bit as they
approach the horizon. But the effects of ships disappearing below the horizon
could be explained by the laws of perspective in relation to the human eye.
Me: Perspective would make the ship
grow smaller, not disappear bit by bit until only the tops of the sails can be
seen.
Mr.
Carpenter: That’s a
lie, and you know it. You are a liar! Anyway, even though there are hills and
valleys on its surface, the Earth seems to extend on all sides in one and the
same general level.
Me: That is true until you climb up a
very high mountain. If you look straight ahead you see a straight line
limiting the horizon and the valleys below, but if you turn around slowly 360°,
you see that line extend in a circle and join with what you were seeing at
first.
Mr.
Carpenter. That’s not
true. Anyway, I base my arguments on what I can see from right here at my
estate, a lovely, flat farmland. I use evidence. I’ll bet you have never been
on a high mountain! You have never seen the curved horizon you refer to. You
are just quoting all the lies! The Earth on which we live and move seems to be
flat. Where, then, is the mistake? Surveyors' operations in the
construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest
"allowance" being made for "curvature”. This is a cutting proof
that Earth is not a globe.
Me: That is because the curvature is so
gradual, and the sections used to construct railroad and tunnels are short segments.
You can see the same phenomenon in the gradual rising of a mountainside, or the
slow dipping of the railway tracks into a valley. It’s not necessary to used
curved construction materials.
Mr. Carpenter: You always have to twist my
arguments. You use unfair examples.
I could go
on. Mr. Carpenter offers 100 arguments to support his thesis of a flat Earth.
We begin to suspect that underneath there are other reasons for his beliefs,
like the need to belong to a group, or a feeling of being excluded from
participating in science.
My main
point is that people who fiercely defend untenable positions are inclined to
dismiss contradicting evidence and to insult those with whom they disagree.
Reference:
William Carpenter
(1885). One hundred proofs the Earth is not a globe. BALTIMORE: Printed and
Published by the Author, No. 71 Chew Street, Carpenter, William (1885). One
Hundred Proofs that the Earth is Not a Globe. Baltimore: William Carpenter –
via Project Gutenberg.
