Error Theory: What is it?

In the 1720s English astronomer James Bradley proved the earth revolves around the sun (you can read about it here). Imagine being alive at that time–before spaceships and satellites–and coming to understand the proof. Would you merrily accept it and be one your way? Likely you would hesitate oreven refuse to accept the proof because it contradicts another piece of evidence: you don’t feel yourself flying through space around the sun like you would expect to. What would really help is if someone could help you understand why you shouldn’t let the latter evidence stymie the former proof.

 

An error theory explains why a belief was attractive, even though it was held for a fallacious reason. It is typically given once a belief has been disproved in order to remove the reasons for which people once held it.  In our example, an error theory would look something like this. We don’t feel ourselves moving around the sun because we are revolving along with the earth at a constant rate, and we only feel changes of movement. For example, even if we are moving at a great rate in the hull of a ship, we don’t feel like we are moving until it comes to a sudden stop. The earth is so large, however, that it is counterintuitive to think of it as a vessel.

 

There are a few things to note here. First, the error theory isn’t actually necessary. The proof showed that we shouldn’t believe the sun goes around the earth, whereas our experience isn’t a proof. Even so, the error theory is really nice to have! It ameliorates the unrest people have when given competing reasons to believe something.  You can imagine your relief at receiving this error theory in the 1720s. You still might be unnerved at the idea that you are hurtling through outer space, but at least you’re no longer confused about your proprioception.

 

Second, an error theory cannot of itself disprove the held belief or give reason to believe a different view. If Bradley hadn’t given his proof, but had explained why we wouldn’t feel the earth moving around the sun, he wouldn’t have thereby proved that the earth moves around the sun. He would, however, have removed what people might have thought was evidence for believing that the sun moves around the earth, which isn’t the same as disproving it, but it’s something.

 

Finally, keeping this latter point in mind, imagine Bradley were wrong about his proof. Could he be right about his error theory? Sure! Remember: an error theory only shows the initial evidence was not a good reason to hold the initial belief, but it isn’t evidence against that belief. So, in this case, the error theory would show that even if someone were right that the sun revolved around the earth, that person would have believed it for the wrong reason.

 

For more about error theories, please check out my YouTube video “If it’s wrong, why does everyone believe it? Error Theory“