我不是指几千名天文学家、地理学家等等，而是指普通的读报的市民，例如你和我。

 

某些地方或者其他地方——我认为它是在《圣女贞德》的前言里——肖伯纳认为今天的我们比起在中世纪时更易受骗且更迷信，做为一个现代轻信的例子，他引用了广为流传相信地球是圆的例子。普通人，说肖伯纳，不能为了认为地球是圆的只提出一个单独的理由。他仅仅是囫囵吞枣地轻信这个理论，因为有某种东西吸引了20世纪的思想。

 

现在，肖伯纳在夸张，但在他说的里面有某种东西，并且这个问题是值得继续探寻的，为了阐明现代知识。可是为什么我们相信地球是圆的？我不是指几千名天文学家、地理学家等等，他们能够拿出显而易见的证据，或者有一个理论上的根据，而是指普通的读报的市民，例如你和我。

 

至于平面地球理论，我相信我能够驳倒它。如果你在晴天站在海边，你能看见在地平线上通过的轮船的桅杆和烟囱而船却看不见。这种现象通过假定仅仅能够被解释为地球的表面是曲线。但它并不能说明地球是球形的。想象另一个被称为蛋形地球理论，它声称地球形状象一个蛋。我能反对它什么呢？

 

反对持球形地球论的人，我打出的第一张牌就是与太阳与月亮相类比。持球形论者迅速回答说不知道，通过我自己的观察，那些天体是球形的。我仅仅知道他们是弧形的，而且他们完全可能是平面的圆盘。我没有回答那个人。此外，他继续说，我有什么理由认为地球肯定是像太阳和月亮一样的形状呢？我也不能回答这个问题。

 

我打出的第二张牌是地球的影子：当出现食现象时地球投影到月亮上，它显得是一个圆形物体的影子。但我怎样知道，要求持球形地球论者，月食是通过地球的影子导致的吗？回答是我不知道，但是已经盲目地从报纸文章和科学册子里获得了这条信息。

 

在这个较不重要的交流中被击败，我现在打出女王牌：专家的观点。皇家天文学家，应该知道，告诉我地球是圆的。持球形地球论者将他的国王牌盖住这张女王牌。我已经检验了这位皇家天文学家的陈述，我甚至会知道一种检验它的方式？于是我抛出我的牌A。是的，我了解一种测验。天文学家能够预言天体食，这提到了他们的太阳系是相当健全的观点。我呢，对于我的高兴来说，用接受他们关于地球的形成如此的说法来判断。

 

如果持球形地球论者回答——我相信什么是真实的——古代埃及人，认为太阳围绕地球旋转，也能预言天体食，于是我失去了我的牌A。我仅有一张牌留下：航海。人们能够围绕世界航行，并且到达他们瞄准的地方，通过假定地球是球体来计算。我相信自己能够在争论中完全击败持球形地球论者，虽然他可能有某些筹码。

 

它将可以看到我的对于认为地球是圆的看法是相当轻信的结果的理由。但这是一条例外的基本的信息。在其他的大多数问题上，我将不得不求助于更早些时候的专家，并且会更不太可能检验他的陈述。而且我们知识的极大部分是在这个水平上。它不是依赖于推理或实验，而是权威。那么它怎样才能是不同的，当知识的山脉是如此巨大以至于专家他自己一旦离开他的专业领域就成了一名无知者？大多数人们，如果要求证明地球是圆的，甚至不会妨碍产生我在上面已经提到的相当虚弱的争论。他们会通过说"每一个人知道"地球是圆的来开始，并且如果更进一步表达，会变得生气。在某种方式上萧伯纳是正确的。这是一个轻信的时代，而且我们现在不得不携带的知识的负荷部分地是有责任的。

Can you prove that the earth is round?
Go ahead and try!
Will you rely on your senses or will you have to draw on the opinions of experts?

WHY DO WE BELIEVE THAT THE EARTH IS ROUND?

 

George Orwell

 

Somewhere or other — I think it is in the preface to saint Joan — Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.

 

Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.

As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizon. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth's surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?

 

Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don't know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can't answer that one either.

 

My second card is the earth's shadow: When cast on the moon during eclipses, it appears to be the shadow of a round object. But how do I know, demands the Oval Earth man, that eclipses of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth? The answer is that I don't know, but have taken this piece of information blindly from newspaper articles and science booklets.

 

Defeated in the minor exchanges, I now play my queen of trumps: the opinion of the experts. The Astronomer Royal, who ought to know, tells me that the earth is round. The Oval Earth man covers the queen with his king. Have I tested the Astronomer Royal's statement, and would I even know a way of testing it? Here I bring out my ace. Yes, I do know one test. The astronomers can foretell eclipses, and this suggests that their opinions about the solar system are pretty sound. I am, to my delight, justified in accepting their say-so about the shape of the earth.

 

If the Oval Earth man answers — what I believe is true — that the ancient Egyptians, who thought the sun goes round the earth, could also predict eclipses, then bang goes my ace. I have only one card left: navigation. People can sail ship round the world, and reach the places they aim at, by calculations which assume that the earth is spherical. I believe that finishes the Oval Earth man, though even then he may possibly have some kind of counter.

 

It will be seen that my reasons for thinking that the earth is round are rather precarious ones. Yet this is an exceptionally elementary piece of information. On most other questions I should have to fall back on the expert much earlier, and would be less able to test his pronouncements. And much the greater part of our knowledge is at this level. It does not rest on reasoning or on experiment, but on authority. And how can it be otherwise, when the range of knowledge is so vast that the expert himself is an ignoramus as soon as he strays away from his own specialty? Most people, if asked to prove that the earth is round, would not even bother to produce the rather weak arguments I have outlined above. They would start off by saying that "everyone knows" the earth to be round, and if pressed further, would become angry. In a way Shaw is right. This is a credulous age, and the burden of knowledge which we now have to carry is partly responsible.

 

 

转一篇未名的评论：

      上世纪二次世界大战期间，反骨思想家兼作家乔治·奥威尔写了一篇论文：“为什么我们相信地球是圆的”，文章不长，也并不十分起眼。上大学时在在英语课就读过，当时只觉得好玩。十几年后自己教了别人，越读越感觉沉重起来。 
奥威尔以身作则，在文中担当起辩论正方，与持疑议者开始次次交锋。这交锋很耐人寻味：你不能引经据典，不能说古希腊人如何说，《圣经·旧约》如何说，阿拉伯人如何说，更不能说最牛的牛人牛顿如何说——你要自己想，自己找证据，自己说。这，并不像想像中来得轻松。 
比如，奥威尔举例道，你说地球是圆的，你怎么知道它不是椭圆的而非是圆的不可？你拿太阳与地球作类比，人家不买账：我凭什么要相信地球与太阳是一样的形体呢？你只好另想高招。月蚀发生时，投射在月亮上的影子可以看出是个圆的东西造成的；你说。可是，人家又会反驳，你怎么知道那月亮上的影子是地球的影子呢，你又没了辄，只好说我不知道，我是从报纸上看来的，从科学书上得来的。你还得走向知识。 
你底气十足地宣布，是皇家天文台的人告诉我的，地球它就是圆的；我相信这些人士，不是因为他们的人，而是因为他们可以用他们的知识预测月蚀啊。这你总无法否认吧。可是，古埃及人是相信正太阳绕着地球转的，他们也能成功地预测月蚀啊！你洋洋得意之际，反方兜头给你一盆冷水。最后，没办法，你只好祭出麦哲伦航行的法宝，可心底里还在泛着嘀咕，不知人家有没有什么法子一枪击毙。 
奥威尔就这样一本正经地追问着我们；他问的是普通人——拿他的话来说，只是“读读报纸的普通公民”（the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen），如你如我之辈。其他专业人士，如天文家，地球学家与其他专业理论人员都刨除在外。在奥氏看来，普通人很少会想什么理由，他们会回答说“谁不知道啊”，如此而已，再问他就保不住跟你急。
所以奥威尔总结说，普通人的知识很少是建立在理性之运用与实验的基础之上，而是以权威为基础的。权威说，大家跟风而已。说这话时，自由思想家奥威尔心中是郁积甚深的：想想他身处的时代，我们并不难理解。因此他才引用萧伯纳在《圣女贞德》序言中的话，即现代人其实比中世纪的人们更为轻信与迷信（gullible and superstitious），他所举的例子就是奥威尔进一步探讨的“为什么我们相信地球为什么是圆的”。直到如今，这问题仍然值得我们的沉思：普通人，才永远是社会的主体。

 

——————————