Is the reason for the past belief that the world was flat due to the oversight of people who lived in castles?

Question

Or, was the belief(or similar beliefs) understandable
considering the resources available at the time;
proximal development?

Allow me to elaborate on why I
conceived this question. Consider that
among the social classes there is an
even distribution of knowledge
seekers(possibly arguable, but for
the question's context give all classes
the benefit of the doubt). Why is it that
such obvious knowledge wasn't
brought to distinction sooner. I can
only assume that it is because it
wasn't deemed important knowledge.
The question then becomes, why
wasn't it deemed to be important
knowledge. I choose to analyze the
question with a separation between
the ruling class nd the labor class(as a
matter of opinion, other possible
reductions might be chosen) because
in the past democracy wasn't as
prevalent. Therefore, the ruling class
being the directing class did not direct
the labor class to investigate the
shape of the world.
Continued...

The labor class, although equally
distributed with knowledge seekers,
didn't have the opportunity for the
observation of the shape of the world,
and if they did then they might have
arrived at the conclusions of the
shape, but didn't share that knowledge
because it wasn't deemed important
by the ruling class. Therefore, even if
the knowledge was found, it was not
proliferated because it wasn't deemed
important. Again, the distribution
of knowledge seekers in each class
is assumed to be balanced, so some
of the ruling authority must have been
interested in such knowledge. Why
wasn't that portion of knowledge
seekers influence enough to stabilize
the knowledge. At the time, they didn't
have the convenience of the press
or other distribution mediums, so the
proliferation would have required
significant cooperation.

Continued...

I think that the decision for
cooperation must have been
inconclusive, and the motion of the
knowledge blocked by a wall of non-
mutuality. The next question is why
non-mutuality, why wasn't the benefit
of knowledge distribution determined
to be more significant than other
current efforts. I think the answer must
be regarding motivation for the need.
The knowledge must not have been
unanimously evaluated to be mutually
beneficial to the quality of life. More
specifically, why didn't ruling
authorities who did hold the opinion
of the benefit of knowledge seeking
become self-sufficient communities
who shared knowledge among
themselves rather than stifle
themselves to appease the
disagreeing factions. I think they
might have feared war arising from
the choice, but I think that those
factions must have already been
at war by the agitation of the requisite
of stifling themselves.
Continued...

With this in mind, did the ruling
authorities conclude that their
individual labor class couldn't
peacefully handle the state of
agitation which the ruling class
had to balance. Was the oversight
that the labor class had an equal
distribution of knowledge seekers
as the ruling class(making them as
capable of coping with the balance
as the ruling class)?

Answer 1

no...I think because it is easier for human eyes (brains) to see straight lines and only vertical and horizontal planes...while reality says that everything goes in circles.

flat minds only see flat world.

Pluto

Answer 2

It is NOT the case the human perception only leads to the belief that the earth is flat (Columbus used his senses to "see" that this was actually not the case--p.s. so do all those EMPIRICAL Scientists {look up the word EMPIRICAL}). Aristotle was the second guy in line for the foundation of modern science, yet in his experiments he concluded that projectiles do not fall in an arch but in linear fashion (which is obviously incorrect - throw something and watch it). This arch is another manifestation of the roundness of the earth we stand on. Eratosthenes (276-195 BCE) was the first person to measure the circumference of earth accurately.
What we must never forget is the fact that much of the Classical knowledge was passed up, lost, and/or forgotten after the Bureaucratic institutionalization of the Christian religion under Emperor Constantine, with which came the Biblical belief in a FLAT earth, (or to quote Joseph Campbell, "The three layer cake"). And, of course, this has been the major influence on Western thought and culture ever since...

Answer 3

I think both could have been contributing factors, among many others. Another explanation for the belief could be that travelling has always existed, but right up to the point where someone was able to calculate the sperical nature of Earth, a person could travel unimaginably long distances in a straight line and never retrace their steps. I guess the imagination of primitive man couldn't conceive of an object as large as the Earth actually is.

Edit: your theory is possible, but makes many assumptions I tend to find questionable at best, and in some cases disagree with. In any case, the climate in those times was fear based for both classes, so survival superseeded knowledge.

Answer 4

I believe the IDEA sprang from the concepts of good and evil, heaven and hell and us in-between. What some people call the "Three Layered Cake." of ancient times. Heaven, Earth, Hell... it's painted nice and pretty in all the mythologies of old and so was concretized as science by the minds of people grasping for an understanding of what is not understandable from one vantage point on earth... that long ago... in a world of life not being connected with fertilizing an egg, or transcontinental flight.
One or the other, they could have considered at least one before trying to take on the topographical qualities of the Earth's surface.

Answer 5

History is not kind to the dark ages in terms of critical thought. I believe your notion of oversight within the ruling powers to be correct. Consider that 3rd century BC Eratosthenes had the whole round Earth thing knocked out, the western European world was still living in a time of backwardness. The western rise of power didn't equate to a sudden rise of reason and rational thought in the ruling elites - that took a lot of time . During the neoclassical period Greek thought was finally revitalized, which gave us Copernicus et al.

Answer 6

The reason the world was believed flat was because to the human senses, it is! Have you ever walked around and thought "Wow, this ground feels pretty curved! It feels like I'm walking on a ball." Probably not. So when something seems true and you haven't had a reason to question it (or to tools to measure it at the time) then why would you?

Answer 7

I think it's because most people just couldn't accept the fact that we're walking on round ground when we're apparently walking on flat ground and that it doesn't feel we're on a sphere of rock. Like the theory that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Most people believed that as well.

Answer 8

Something to remember, its easier to think in 2D (flat) rather than 3D (round / ball) it is also easier to understand that water sits on a flat surface and does not run off the bottom of a globe. This was a major factor in the flat earth belief...

Answer 9

Given the concept infinity, the notion could be an infinitely flat earth with an infinitely wide sky. Who would or could venture out that far to disprove it. The expeditions did not prove cost effective, so they abandoned further attempts. That's one theory.

Answer 10

Yes understandable, though ridiculous given that it was proved round by an ancient Greek whose name I can't now recall. I reckon the problem, as always, was that most people had their heads in the sand, or bowed so much in obeisance and prayer to questionable authority figures that they couldn't see what was before them.