Talk:Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Empirical evidence for the spherical shape of Earth article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

project

Maps

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

History of Science Mid‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

this is not proof of anything

the first paragraph of the section labelled Observation of constellations on North and South hemispheres at different seasons reads: "The fact that some stars are only visible from either the north or south poles must mean that the two observation spots are on opposite sides of Earth, which is not possible if Earth is a single-sided disk, but is possible for other shapes (like a sphere, but also any other convex shape like a donut or dumbbell)."

this is wrong for two different reasons:

1. it uses an a priori assumption that the Earth has poles, and therefore cannot be used to prove that the Earth is a sphere because that is the assumption being made to start with. only a sphere would have poles, so the existence of poles means that you are assuming the Earth is sphere. you cannot "prove" the thing you are assuming to be true.

2. in an earlier section of the article it was noted that as long ago as Aristotle it had been observed that different stars are visible from different points on the surface of the Earth. the actual example given was that, and I quote: "some stars are visible from Egypt which are not visible from Europe." Europe and Egypt are not on opposite sides of the Earth. therefore, going back to the quote about the poles, the observation that "some stars are only visible from either the north or south poles" does not prove, as claimed, that those spots are on opposite sides of the Earth. it merely shows that they are on different points on the surface of a not-flat Earth.

to be clear, I do believe the Earth is a sphere, but this unreferenced paragraph about polar observations has no place in a list of proofs of that point, so I have deleted it. Cottonshirt τ 06:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both good points. Obviously no star is visible only from one pole or the other. Something something different latitudes. —Tamfang (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say when I saw this new section on my watchlist I was very much expecting something else lol. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor are you alone in that. —Tamfang (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]