I don't believe I would have to suppress theory that Sun revolves around Earth because I never had such theory because when I became curious why this bright dot on the sky appears on different places it was explained to me what revolves around what and how it is possible.
I think I might have more trouble with the question "does the sun move across the sky" because when I look up I don't see any movement.
It's not about the intuitiveness of a belief. It's about whether the right or wrong theory got to the child first. You internalize first good enough theory you hear not the one that's most intuitive or the one that explains all the data best.
I don't think it's that simple. Look at our language: the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Noon is when the sun is straight above us. All this basic language implies the sun is moving and the earth is stationary. Language is incredibly important to how we form thoughts.
"Sun rises" implicates only movement. Sun apparently moving does not imply that I'm stationary. It's easy to tell that the sun moves same way as trees move seen through a window of a train.
You could explain it to a 4 year old. But for that you have to know and believe that it's the Earth that actually moves. Otherwise you'll plant false idea and intuition into member of next generation.
That point wasn't whether or not you could explain it or believe it; obviously everyone knows the earth revolves around the sun. The point is that somewhere deep in our brains the sun moving around the earth is fundamental. The fact that our language implicates movement of the sun might just be the cause.
I don't think our brains have built in even the concept of the Earth having any around for the Sun to move.
Many religions have concept of sun being born at dawn, travel through the sky and die at dusk and stay dead through the night.
Our brains surely have the idea that Earth is flat built in. But I don't think that anyone has to suppress that ingrained theory when answering "is the Earth round or flat?"
This is because we all as children, when we were for the first time curious what shape the world has, were told that it's round and were shown pictures. That's first sensible theory we got and that's the one we internalized.
> But I don't think that anyone has to suppress that ingrained theory when answering "is the Earth round or flat?"
That's an unfounded assumption; perhaps we pause at that question as much as we pause about questions about the movement of the sun. Certainly the character of the question is the same.
I generally agree. I don't find evolution troublesome, for example, because the idea that "my cousin is an ape" is OK by me.
The counterexample to this tidy situation is quantum mechanics. Its implications are confusing even to experts. We have so much experience with macro-level phenomena that runs counter to what QM says. It's hard to imagine a world where this mismatch could be averted at an early age.
I think I might have more trouble with the question "does the sun move across the sky" because when I look up I don't see any movement.
It's not about the intuitiveness of a belief. It's about whether the right or wrong theory got to the child first. You internalize first good enough theory you hear not the one that's most intuitive or the one that explains all the data best.