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

active open programming asked:


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)?

MICKEY