![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I've just finished reading a fascinating account of the "Flat Error"--not the idea that the Earth is flat, but the idea that medieval (or sometimes other) people thought the Earth was flat, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians by Jeffrey Burton Russell (NY: Praeger, 1991). Inventing the Flat Earth locates the error primarily in late nineteenth-century controversies between religion and science (which, Russell also points out, were relatively new: science was not only allowed but sometimes encouraged by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, and real opposition between the two only began with Copernicus, who was never charged, and Galileo, who was). Washington Irving's influential, and highly dramatic, life of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus was hauled before an ecclesiastical council at the University of Salamanca to defend his idea that the Earth was round. In fact, Columbus answered a royal commission who just happened to meet at the University (and were not affiliated with it or with the Catholic Church) to argue that the Earth was much smaller than they thought, so the trip to the Indies would be an easy voyage.
Columbus was wrong, and the commission was much closer to the correct figure (Russell 8–9).
This error has been perpetrated in many dramas and, more shockingly, textbooks, some still used in schools from elementary school through college.
Perhaps the most interesting questions in the book, however, are why the Flat Error took hold in the first place and why people cling to an idea that has been refuted by loads of documentation for centuries now; the Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth" shows edits from people on both sides and includes this sentence: "In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell (professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara) claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe." "Claim" sounds like he's just tossing accusations around; the book is short (79 pages plus 23 pages of notes and seven of "Selected Bibliography") but well documented. At the very least, he argues his thesis, not "claims" it. (And if I had world enough and time, I'd edit Wikipedia, but I have enough time sinks in my life, thanks.)
To quote from Russell's final chapter: "What can the Flat Error teach us about human knowledge and our own worldview? First, historians, scientists, scholars, and other writers often wittingly or unwittingly repeat and propagate errors of fact or interpretation. No one can be automatically believed or trusted without checking methodology and sources" (75--and I've been reading some of his primary sources, and I think that not only is his reading accurate, but he could have accumulated far more evidence of the sorts he does). "Second, scholars and scientists often are led by their biases more than by the evidence. Third, historians, who could be expected by the nature of their trade to understand that every worldview is a human construct and that paradigms of knowledge are precarious and inevitably change, including the religious, scientific realist, and positivist worldviews, sometimes forgot that there are and can be no privileged systems by which to judge the truth of other systems." (75) "Fourth, the modern view combining relativism and progress as widely understood is incoherent." (76) "Finally, fallacies or 'myths' of this nature take on a life of their own..." (76).
The book is a quick read (especially if you don't keep flipping to the endnotes as I did) and really fascinating. I highly recommend it to those with interests in history, especially intellectual history, and history of science.
Columbus was wrong, and the commission was much closer to the correct figure (Russell 8–9).
This error has been perpetrated in many dramas and, more shockingly, textbooks, some still used in schools from elementary school through college.
Perhaps the most interesting questions in the book, however, are why the Flat Error took hold in the first place and why people cling to an idea that has been refuted by loads of documentation for centuries now; the Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth" shows edits from people on both sides and includes this sentence: "In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell (professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara) claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe." "Claim" sounds like he's just tossing accusations around; the book is short (79 pages plus 23 pages of notes and seven of "Selected Bibliography") but well documented. At the very least, he argues his thesis, not "claims" it. (And if I had world enough and time, I'd edit Wikipedia, but I have enough time sinks in my life, thanks.)
To quote from Russell's final chapter: "What can the Flat Error teach us about human knowledge and our own worldview? First, historians, scientists, scholars, and other writers often wittingly or unwittingly repeat and propagate errors of fact or interpretation. No one can be automatically believed or trusted without checking methodology and sources" (75--and I've been reading some of his primary sources, and I think that not only is his reading accurate, but he could have accumulated far more evidence of the sorts he does). "Second, scholars and scientists often are led by their biases more than by the evidence. Third, historians, who could be expected by the nature of their trade to understand that every worldview is a human construct and that paradigms of knowledge are precarious and inevitably change, including the religious, scientific realist, and positivist worldviews, sometimes forgot that there are and can be no privileged systems by which to judge the truth of other systems." (75) "Fourth, the modern view combining relativism and progress as widely understood is incoherent." (76) "Finally, fallacies or 'myths' of this nature take on a life of their own..." (76).
The book is a quick read (especially if you don't keep flipping to the endnotes as I did) and really fascinating. I highly recommend it to those with interests in history, especially intellectual history, and history of science.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
This makes 2 books today that I have to add to my wish list.
From:
no subject
As another medievalist said, "You know that orb thing rulers hold in medieval portraits? If they thought the Earth was flat, it would be a spatula!"
You have a cool avatar for this item! I gotta get some more avatars.