# Is Earth a sphere?



## Bullgrit (Aug 23, 2013)

Is Earth a sphere?

I'm curious to see the chosen answers.

Bullgrit


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 23, 2013)

Earth is an oblate spheroid, a flattened sphere. The earth's spin causes the equatorial region to be wider than the distance between the poles.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 23, 2013)

Is it a sphere? Not precisely? Is it round? Certainly. Is it flat? In places.


----------



## Dioltach (Aug 23, 2013)

The Earth is flat, you heretics! I'll see you all burned!


----------



## Umbran (Aug 23, 2013)

Earth is not a _perfect_ sphere.  It is an oblate spheroid - a sphere bulging at the equator, and slightly flattened at the poles.


----------



## CAFRedblade (Aug 23, 2013)

It's close enough to being a sphere for me.  Yes Gravity and other forces squish/stretch and pull it, but that's fine.  

Which is good enough for me to now reply like this: 
http://xkcd.com/1248/


----------



## Janx (Aug 23, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Earth is not a _perfect_ sphere.  It is an oblate spheroid - a sphere bulging at the equator, and slightly flattened at the poles.




So did you choose Yes or No?


It's hard to tell if the poll is a test of who believes the earth is round vs. flat, or if it's a test of who's going to quibble that Bullgrit said "Sphere" and not "oblate spheroid" which is more specific and thus more correct.

does each responder KNOW what bullgrit meant, or did we ASSUME?

Did we respond in the negative because we object to his imprecision?


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 23, 2013)

I said no, and answered the same as Umbram with "oblate spheroid", since the moon for example is much less oblate and much closer to a true sphere. Compared to a true sphere, an oblate spheroid is something else...

I follow the old school adage, regarding true or false questions, if any part of the question is false, the answer is false, even if the rest of the question is true.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Aug 23, 2013)

Voted no, because its an oblate spheroid, as others have mentioned. But I was expecting more than a yes/no poll, or at least an explanation. So poor Bullgrit ought to have known that this crowd could take it either way without bothering to explain _or _mention which they'd chosen. One or the other is often the case unless specifics are asked for.


----------



## Janx (Aug 23, 2013)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Voted no, because its an oblate spheroid, as others have mentioned. But I was expecting more than a yes/no poll, or at least an explanation. So poor Bullgrit ought to have known that this crowd could take it either way without bothering to explain _or _mention which they'd chosen. One or the other is often the case unless specifics are asked for.




What I saw with the poll is an example of a communication problem.

When a person like Bullgrit makes a statement or asks a question, do we take his general meaning as perfectly round or roundish and most definitely not flat?

In either case, we have to risk making an assumption.  We could stop to ask clarifying questions at the risk of further bogging down discussion and being pedantic. 

There's no layman's term for oblate spheroid, so how would Bullgrit know the right word to say, let alone be understood by a larger audience if he had used the more precise term.

A few years back, my department had to go to a communications seminar by a company called Teleos.  Most of us thought it was going to be a total waste of time.  But I actually got something out of it.

One of the most disruptive things we do as listeners is to not give the speaker the benefit of the doubt as to their  meaning when speaking.  We assume sneaky motives, and ill intent.  Communication would go smoother if we gave the speaker Grace when deciding the meaning of their words and how we respond.

Given the brevity of Bullgrit's poll, as I noted before, I'm not really sure if he's trying to find Flat Earth Society members or see how actually knows the earth isn't perfectly round with some word play puzzle.

But the lesson I'm reminded of is how I've seen posters go down into pedantic bickery, team members crater a discussion by deliberating misinterpreting things, even managers hyper-analyzing emails to see if there's some veiled insult in somebody's message.

Give the speaker some grace.  Answer the question at face value.  He hasn't beaten you with some "oh some clever plan to trick you" any more than the jerk in the party outwitted you when his loner thief betrays the party again.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 23, 2013)

Janx said:


> So did you choose Yes or No?




Yes, I did choose Yes or No.  



> It's hard to tell if the poll is a test of who believes the earth is round vs. flat...




If that's what he wanted to test, he worded it poorly.  



> ...or if it's a test of who's going to quibble that Bullgrit said "Sphere" and not "oblate spheroid" which is more specific and thus more correct.




...or if it is a test of who feels the difference is "quibbling". 



> does each responder KNOW what bullgrit meant, or did we ASSUME?




Or did we not care what he meant, and answered it as stated?


----------



## MarkB (Aug 23, 2013)

Voted "yes" because it's close enough to a sphere, and probably closer than many things you'd look at and think "yeah, that's a sphere".


----------



## Umbran (Aug 23, 2013)

Janx said:


> There's no layman's term for oblate spheroid, so how would Bullgrit know the right word to say, let alone be understood by a larger audience if he had used the more precise term.




If he doesn't know, he's supposed to learn through folks telling him the more correct term when appropriate.  This being an internet message board, the larger audience has access to search engines and online dictionaries that can tell them what the term means when it is presented!  I fail to see a problem here.


----------



## Nytmare (Aug 24, 2013)

My first thought upon seeing this poll was that it should have been worded "Do you _think_ the Earth is a sphere."

The next poll should be "What do you think Bullgrit meant when he asked this question?"


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 24, 2013)

For the record, I do know the exact shape and size of Earth. I wasn't asking this poll to learn Earth's shape, I was curious how folks here would answer the question. 

Would people get scientifically precise to the point where they'd say "no" to Earth being a sphere? Even though it is within 00.3% of a sphere. See, even though I know the exact shape and size of Earth, I still checked the Yes vote. Just like I call this a circle:







I wonder how many people who vote No, that Earth is not a sphere, would say Yes the above is a circle? It is the same x/y-axis ratio as Earth equator/poles ratio, so it's no more a circle than Earth is a sphere. (Or, it is as much a circle as Earth is a sphere.)

I didn't start this poll to in anyway offend, pick on, or argue with anyone about the shape of this planet. I was truly just curious how many people would essentially split hairs over the question. Now, although I voted and would answer Yes that Earth is a sphere, I would, in a reply post or a verbal explanation, elaborate on the shape for precision. But given a yes or no choice, I would side on Yes, Earth is a sphere. I find it interesting that some could not accept the 00.3% inaccuracy, and have to say No.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Aug 24, 2013)

A sphere is a good enough description for conversational language. Depends on the context of the discussion.


----------



## Nytmare (Aug 24, 2013)

This is not hair splitting.   These are things with definitions (hair splitting, for the record, also has a definition).  A sphere is a specific thing, and the Earth, though close, does not fit the definition of a sphere.

The picture you posted, looks like a circle.  If you had asked me "What shape is this thing?" I probably would have answered "circle."  But, if you had asked me "What shape is this thing that scads and scads of scientists have painstakingly measured with exacting accuracy over the last who-knows-how-many years, that you've learned about in school, and have watched probably about a hundred different episodes of various science shows talking about the fact (note: fact) that it is not a circle." I would have answered "Not a circle."


----------



## Ahnehnois (Aug 24, 2013)

Is a d6 a cube?


----------



## darjr (Aug 24, 2013)

Duh! The earth is flat!..........





In some places on its sphere.


----------



## Leif (Aug 24, 2013)

The technical geometric term for the shape of the earth is "oblate spheroid," (as numerous others have observed here) which means it's kinda roundish, but too squished in from top and bottom to be an actual sphere.  But I still like darjr's answer best of all.


----------



## Janx (Aug 24, 2013)

Morrus said:


> A sphere is a good enough description for conversational language. Depends on the context of the discussion.




I would assume that a circle means that any given point on the perimeter is exactly the same distance from the center (radius) as any other point on the perimeter.

A sphere is pretty much the same thing in 3d.  Any point on its surface is exactly the same distance from the center as any other point on its surface.

Any object that is a sphere probably cannot retain that shape when in the ongoing presence of other forces (gravity, impact).  I suppose I can't prove that, but I don't anybody can prove an astronomical body is perfectly round either.

It is obvious to me that the first meteor strike on a body is going to leave a dent and a ridge, that both create uneven distances from the center.

Therefore, a sphere as in "perfect" cannot exist for practical purposes.

Therefore, the probability someone means perfect sphere, outside of a theoretical geometry lesson is also improbable.

The earth isn't shaped like a potato.  Nor is it flat like a record.  Is it a sphere?  I guess it depends on who we're talking to.


----------



## Nytmare (Aug 24, 2013)

Smoothness and roundness are two kinda different things.

I'm fairly certain (at least if I'm remembering all those episodes of Nova correctly) that when a scientist says that the Earth is not a perfect sphere, they are not talking about it's topology or imperfections due to hills, valleys, cities, and cows.  They're talking about the fact that the distance around the planet is about 100 miles shorter if you go vertically, than if you go horizontally.

It's only squished a little, yes, but squished enough that you can only call it "almost" a sphere.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 24, 2013)

Discussing this subject has brought up interesting thoughts, and I'm having fun looking these up through Google. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the atmosphere is not considered in the diameter of Earth. But in other cases, the atmosphere is considered just as much a part of Earth as the molten core. The diameter of the gas giant planets includes their atmospheres. Interesting double standard.

Bullgrit


----------



## Nytmare (Aug 24, 2013)

Two interesting conversations - 

http://possiblywrong.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/is-the-earth-like-a-billiard-ball-or-not/

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/jul/27/holy_hotcakes_study/


Also Bullgrit, again I might be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that the gas giants don't have a solid surface like the Earth does.

[EDIT]  http://www.universetoday.com/47354/jupiters-surface/

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?129200-What-is-the-surface-like-on-a-gas-giant


----------



## MarkB (Aug 24, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Discussing this subject has brought up interesting thoughts, and I'm having fun looking these up through Google. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the atmosphere is not considered in the diameter of Earth. But in other cases, the atmosphere is considered just as much a part of Earth as the molten core. The diameter of the gas giant planets includes their atmospheres. Interesting double standard.
> 
> Bullgrit




Atmosphere is a tricky thing to measure for such purposes, as it attenuates gradually - you'd have to decide on a cut-off point where it becomes thin enough to be considered just 'space'.

With the gas giants, a measurement of diameter that does not include the atmosphere would be little more than guesswork, as we can't directly view their liquid surface, and the current scientific models of their internal structure contain a fair margin of error.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Interesting double standard.




Well, here's the thing: apples and oranges.  It isn't a double standard.  It is more like two standards, used for two objects with significantly different properties.

We usually don't concern ourselves overmuch about the atmosphere when discussing the size of Earth, because the planet has a mean radius of 6,371.0 km, but 75% of the mass of the atmosphere lies in a thin envelope only about 11 km thick.  And, being a gas, the mass of the atmosphere doesn't amount to much, compared to the mass of the planet.  If you thought the difference between the polar and equatorial radius was too small to worry about, the difference between including the atmosphere and not including it is even smaller.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 24, 2013)

The thing is, to be terribly overprecise, there are no spheres.  None, zippo, nada, except as a mathematical construct.

No object that exists as a real physical object is a precise, perfect, sphere.

Since the question didn't say, "is the earth a sphere to within 1% of precision", which is how it would be worded for scientific or engineering precision, and since there is no context to supply that addition, we must fall back on everyday meanings.

Within everyday meanings, the earth is a sphere.

The real problem here is that we aren't given a context in which to decide if the everyday meaning is good enough.  Absent that context, there is just a little too much room for different people to supply their own context and arrive at different answers.

As a nit: Instead of saying "oblate spheroid" you can say "slightly flattened at the poles", which is 100% everyday English.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 24, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Discussing this subject has brought up interesting thoughts, and I'm having fun looking these up through Google. Correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the atmosphere is not considered in the diameter of Earth. But in other cases, the atmosphere is considered just as much a part of Earth as the molten core. The diameter of the gas giant planets includes their atmospheres. Interesting double standard.
> 
> Bullgrit




Well, gas giants are, for the majority of their radius, all atmosphere.  That is quite distinct from a rocky planet, such as the earth, which has a rather thin and tenuous atmosphere in comparison.  Practically, measuring the radius of a gas giant without including its atmosphere wouldn't be very useful.  A gas giant such as Jupiter does have deeply buried liquid (ish - liquid might not fully and accurately describe the state) and solid layers.  I don't think we have accurate measurements of the radii of those layers.

In this space, gas giants are significant in that they have very high rates of rotation.  (Tickles me that we should talk about gas giants in this space.)  Because of the high rates of rotation, the planets have high oblateness.

See:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/education/outerplanets/giantplanets_whatandwhere.php

http://www.hs.uni-hamburg.de/DE/Ins/Per/vonEssen/img/iau282_highres.pdf

The figures for oblateness for the solar system are:

Jupiter: 6.5%
Saturn: 9.8%
Uranus: 2.3%
Neptune: 1.7%

With O = (R_equator - R_Pole)/R_equator

From that second link, even with it's near 10% oblateness, Saturn still looks spherical.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Aug 24, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> The thing is, to be terribly overprecise, there are no spheres.  None, zippo, nada, except as a mathematical construct.
> 
> No object that exists as a real physical object is a precise, perfect, sphere.




Probably true, in a practical sense.  But note there's a difference between "almost a sphere, with random variations", and "almost a sphere, with rather specific variations arising from specific known causes".  The first is often not worth comment, while the second may more often seem worth comment.



> Since the question didn't say, "is the earth a sphere to within 1% of precision", which is how it would be worded for scientific or engineering precision, and since there is no context to supply that addition, we must fall back on everyday meanings.




We may fall back.  There is no "must" about it.


----------



## Leif (Aug 24, 2013)

tomBitonti said:


> As a nit: Instead of saying "oblate spheroid" you can say "slightly flattened at the poles", which is 100% everyday English.



But I object!  "Oblate" is a common word in my vocabulary, most often used to describe the tendency of my physical form as I age.  I find that I grow more oblate with each passing week.  Moreso if the previous week happened to include Thanksgiving or Christmas.  Someday, I may be disc-shaped.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 24, 2013)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If you thought the difference between the polar and equatorial radius was too small to worry about, the difference between including the atmosphere and not including it is even smaller.



But apparently the very small difference of pole vs. equatorial diameter is enough for someone to say Earth is not a sphere, but the envelope of atmosphere around the planet is too small to count in the measurement.

Again, I'm not arguing one way or another. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. I'm just noting choices as interesting.

And the context of the original question has been asked for at least a couple of times in this thread. The context is "a simple question posed on a general discussion forum in a thread tagged as 'Science'".

Here's another question: If a non-scientist college professor where to refer to Earth as a sphere, would you think him wrong? Would you point out the error?

And lastly for this post, I note another interesting thing in the responses here: "Earth" vs. "the Earth"
When I'm speaking, I could say either without thinking about it. When I write, (that is, when I'm thinking about it), I drop the article. I couple of times in this thread I've had to backspace and remove the "the".

Bullgrit


----------



## Leif (Aug 24, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Here's another question: If a non-scientist college professor where to refer to Earth as a sphere, would you think him wrong? Would you point out the error?
> Bullgrit



Depends.  Is the non-scientist prof. a professor of the "art" of mathematics?  And, of infinitely greater importance, am I presumed to be depending upon this professor for a grade this semester?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 24, 2013)

gee, I answered no because I went with Planet  knowing the gas giant supporters are out to get the smaller planet declassified like Pluto!  I don't want to say Bullgrit is filled with gas but... 

It was also based on too much science shows and math on what a sphere is.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 25, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> But apparently the very small difference of pole vs. equatorial diameter is enough for someone to say Earth is not a sphere, but the envelope of atmosphere around the planet is too small to count in the measurement.




Yes.  If A > B, one can reasonably choose to worry about A, but not about B.  Pretty simple, really.  Not even all that interesting.



> Here's another question: If a non-scientist college professor where to refer to Earth as a sphere, would you think him wrong? Would you point out the error?




No flat answer for that - who the guy is in his day job is only one part of the social context.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 25, 2013)

How much we can resolve with a slight change:

Is the Earth a sphere.  In a technical sense, no.  But in a technical sense, "sphere" is a mathematical concept not applicable to real objects.  For a real object, "spherical" is more correct to use.

Is an unholed bowling ball (before the finger holes are drilled) a sphere?  It is intended to be a sphere, but no matter how perfect, it won't be perfect, and won't be a sphere.  However, a bowling ball, and the earth, are undeniably spherical.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Nytmare (Aug 25, 2013)




----------



## Leif (Aug 25, 2013)

You've got to love Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a/k/a Dr. Awesome, but Bill Maher is a total and complete waste of space.


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 26, 2013)

I voted "no" due to the oblate spheroid issue. While it's easy to say that the difference doesn't matter, it matters a lot in certain circumstances. 

I wrote an app where, as part of it, you could find out where other users were, providing the direction and distance to them. Using standard trigonometry of a sphere proved to be far too inaccurate. Instead I had to use the Haversine formula to calculate the "great circle distance" between points, which works on an oblate spheroid.

So, no, the Earth is not the shape of a true sphere, or even all that close.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 26, 2013)

The distinction, I suspect, is no whether it matters whether it's a sphere - clearly it does - but whether it matters whether we call it a sphere, and in what conversational contexts. 

And given Bullgrit has now defined the context as a not-really-a-context-just-a-medium, the only real answer is "I guess, if you want". Or, in short, the question needs a context to have any meaning, and "on a messageboard" is just a place, not a context.


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 26, 2013)

I think the term "sphere" is clear enough, without a need for "perfect" to added in front. It is either a sphere or not. Consider a four sided object, if equal length lines with 90 degree corners, I'd call that a square. If lines or angles are off, I wouldn't call it squarish or almost a square. I'd call it a rectangle, parallelogram, rhombus, trapezoid or a quadrilateral shape - or whatever it happened to be.

Being an artist, I perceive my world visually, and exact definitions when they are available should be used even in simple conversation to describe what we see. I'm not trying to be anal, I just call things as I see them and call them by their proper names, if I know them.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 26, 2013)

gamerprinter said:


> I think the term "sphere" is clear enough, without a need for "perfect" to added in front. It is either a sphere or not. Consider a four sided object, if equal length lines with 90 degree corners, I'd call that a square. If lines or angles are off, I wouldn't call it squarish or almost a square. I'd call it a parallelogram, a rhombus, a trapezoid or a quadrilateral shape - or whatever it happened to be.
> 
> Being an artist, I perceive my world visually, and exact definitions when they are available should be used even in simple conversation to describe what we see. I'm not trying to be anal, I just call things as I see them and call them by their proper names, if I know them.




So you would never call anything a sphere, give that a perfect sphere does not exist in the universe (to our knowledge)?  Is it just a word you would never, ever use?

[Physicists can correct me if I'm wrong about that - maybe singularities/black holes or something form perfect spheres!]


----------



## gamerprinter (Aug 26, 2013)

As I said, I'm an artist, I can create a sphere in 3D. Though it does not exist in the non-virtual world, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Let me be clear, if the distances between the poles was equidistant to opposite points on the equator (not having a .003 difference), I'd call it a sphere, even though there are deep places in the ocean and great heights in the mountains. It doesn't have to be perfect to be called a sphere, but if oblate spheroid is a closer definition of the earth than a sphere, I'd use that term.

I'd also call a spherically shaped man-made objects spheres. A golf ball has divots in it making it not a perfect sphere, but show me a photo of a golf ball and one of the earth and ask which is the sphere? I'd point to the golf ball.

I consider the theoretical concepts as existing as well. The idea of a perfect sphere can be imagined, so in that sense it exists.

I'll bet a singularity is much closer to an exact sphere to anything else as far as heavenly bodies go. How about a dwarf star? The gravitational forces are so great, perhaps having no shape alteration because of polar spin.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 26, 2013)

Morrus said:


> So you would never call anything a sphere, give that a perfect sphere does not exist in the universe (to our knowledge)?  Is it just a word you would never, ever use?
> 
> [Physicists can correct me if I'm wrong about that - maybe singularities/black holes or something form perfect spheres!]




If a black hole is spinning (which it likely is, as the star it came from was probably spinning and there's no solidly accepted mechanism for it to shed the angular momentum as it dies), then it, too, will be a oblate sphereoid.

Context matters.  Here, on EN World, I'm one of the science details guys - that forms a chunk of my social context.  So, when a science question comes up, I will tend to give a more precise answer over a less precise one.  That doesn't mean I'll never refer to something as a sphere, just in these types of questions I have a leaning to the details.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 26, 2013)

The best term would be globe but that is a model of the earth (if you don't want to go planet, you bunch of gas giant supporters)


----------



## Janx (Aug 26, 2013)

Umbran said:


> If a black hole is spinning (which it likely is, as the star it came from was probably spinning and there's no solidly accepted mechanism for it to shed the angular momentum as it dies), then it, too, will be a oblate sphereoid.
> 
> Context matters.  Here, on EN World, I'm one of the science details guys - that forms a chunk of my social context.  So, when a science question comes up, I will tend to give a more precise answer over a less precise one.  That doesn't mean I'll never refer to something as a sphere, just in these types of questions I have a leaning to the details.




So is it always appropriate to respond in the literal and technically precise, or can you dumb it down a a little some times?

The reality is, Bullgrit was running an experiment of sorts.  He chose a vague and imprecise term to see how people like you an me respond (no harm in that, those experiments are fun).  I certainly smelled this was an experiment when I saw it, and I suspect so did you.

I'm curious if folks like you and myself can recognize when a situation doesn't call for sciency Mr. Right to chime in, and just go along with a basic answer?


----------



## darjr (Aug 26, 2013)

[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION];
 I don't want it to be that simple. I'd like to get this interplay when questions like this come up. I think it'd do the whole sphere (squished or not) good if more of this kind of conversation could be had.


----------



## Janx (Aug 26, 2013)

darjr said:


> [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION];
> I don't want it to be that simple. I'd like to get this interplay when questions like this come up. I think it'd do the whole sphere (squished or not) good if more of this kind of conversation could be had.




Certainly in the context that "It seems like Bullgrit's asking a trick question..." framework, that makes sense.

but in other context?

What if Bullgrit was asking "is the earth round or flat?" because he was responding to somebody who thought the moon landing was faked and the international dateline is where the drop-off the edge is (that's why Oceanic 815 disappeared off the map, you know).

to me, some of these responses can start to feel more like "look at how much smarter I am compared to the rest of you louts"

While it's not a good thing that school children don't express interest in learning and don't want to appear to be "smart", it is also prideful and denigrating to be the kid who HAS to raise his hand to answer every question to show the rest of the class how smart he is.

As Douglas Adams observed, nobody likes a smart ass.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 26, 2013)

Not sure if this is the best analysis.  Fudging somewhat about what would be perceptible.  I'm using a half width of a 0.1 mm line as a limit.  I suspect that is smaller than necessary, but don't have anything to go on to set a different limit.

For the Earth:

Equatorial Radius: 6.378 x 10^3 km

Polar Radius: 6.357 x 10^3 km

0.021 x 10^3 km (21 km)

21 km / 6,378 km = 0.0033 = 0.3%

1 part in 333

Assuming that a very fine 0.2mm mechanical pencil will generate a 0.1 mm line, 33.3 mm is 3.3 cm.  Slightly more than 1 in.

Would be interesting to ask how that relates to perception: At what scale would the oblateness be perceptible?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 26, 2013)

Janx said:
			
		

> The reality is, Bullgrit was running an experiment of sorts. He chose a vague and imprecise term to see how people like you an me respond (no harm in that, those experiments are fun). I certainly smelled this was an experiment when I saw it, and I suspect so did you.



An experiment, yes. But one for discussion. Although I don't think I used a vague and imprecise term. "Sphere" is pretty specific and precise -- as the responses in this thread show.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Certainly in the context that "It seems like Bullgrit's asking a trick question..." framework, that makes sense.



This wasn't a trick question. There was no trickery or misdirection, and no point to be made. No one who answered either way should feel in anyway tricked. It's not like I had the "correct" answer, and just wanted to spring it on anyone who answered "wrong."



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> And given Bullgrit has now defined the context as a not-really-a-context-just-a-medium, the only real answer is "I guess, if you want". Or, in short, the question needs a context to have any meaning, and "on a messageboard" is just a place, not a context.



I must completely misunderstand what "context" means, then. I don't see how I failed to answer what the context of the question is. But then I also don't see how I need to manufacture some outside context to get a person's answer. Reading this question right here on this forum *is* the context.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Aug 26, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> This wasn't a trick question. There was no trickery or misdirection, and no point to be made. No one who answered either way should feel in anyway tricked. It's not like I had the "correct" answer, and just wanted to spring it on anyone who answered "wrong."




"Trick" being the only adjective I could think of to apply to it.  The actual goal of the querant was NOT the objective of the question.

if "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a trick question, and "What is your favorite colour" is not a trick question, then "Is Earth a Sphere" falls closer to the trick bucket than not.

As an experiment to see how Janx responds differently than Umbran, it's fine.

As a style of asking questions of normal conversation or of answering them, it indicates some other communication lessons to consider (as I wrote about later).



Bullgrit said:


> I must completely misunderstand what "context" means, then. I don't see how I failed to answer what the context of the question is. But then I also don't see how I need to manufacture some outside context to get a person's answer. Reading this question right here on this forum *is* the context.




I certainly get that the Misc Forum on EN World is where thought experiment or sciency questions get asked.  thus, the context of you asking "Is Earth a Sphere" on this forum different than if you had asked it in a conspiracy theory forum (where the flat-earthers might troll).


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Aug 26, 2013)

This has very little to do with right and wrong and more to do with accuracy and precision:  which are common variables for reading comprehension tests.  

Given the absence of precision in query one must default to accuracy in answer.  

You will commonly hear people talk about being 'more right'  which is a fearfully obscure term that doesn't make anyone feel any better.  

The crux of the situation is that given the simplicity of the (rhetoric of the) question the respondent is logically bound to the simplicity of the answer.   You will often see people responding to comprehension problems with invented narrative to fill in the lack of information in the question.  This seems to be an innately gestalt way that people make meaning for themselves regardless of information given...it is very common.  Unfortunately, it isn't accurate...because the answer fails to parallel the text.  If you find yourself having to ask a question about the question in order to answer the question (or explaining your answer): your answer is becoming more precise than the question is asking...and beginning to become less accurate.  While if you ask yourself, using the boundaries of the question, whether one answer is more accurate than the other you will find yourself in a much better position to answer the question correctly.  

In the example, all you would have to ask is whether the Earth is closer to being a sphere than to not being a sphere:  not whether is is closer to another shape; but, only using the yes or no dichotomy given in the query.   The lack of precision of the answer is dictated through the lack of precision in the question...it is an either or.

Many people have mentioned context which gives a frame of reference for a question.  This could easily be considered an addition to precision to a query that will affect the correctness of an answer.  

But, for the sake of this forum, and the rhetoric given, I would have a hard time ever considering any other answer than 'yes.'


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 27, 2013)

Janx said:


> It's hard to tell if the poll is a test of who believes the earth is round vs. flat, or if it's a test of who's going to quibble that Bullgrit said "Sphere" and not "oblate spheroid" which is more specific and thus more correct.



And that's why I always hated multiple choice tests in school! Without a means to explain your choices, there's really no way to tell if you are correct or not.

It also reminds me of a passage in Neal Stephenson's 'Cryptonomicon': In it, one of the protagonists, a genius mathematician, fails a rather trivial qualifying test when trying to join the army, because the questions, to him, are to imprecise to be answered in a meaningful way. E.g. one question is talking about a boat with a particular speed on a river flowing with a certain speed, so he starts wondering about things like
'where did they measure the river's speed and is the boat closer to the center of the river or to the water's edge?'

Oh, and I voted 'No', because the earth isn't a perfect sphere, only a spheroid. The difference is sufficiently pronounced that it has a great impact on the regional effects of climatic change.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 27, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> This wasn't a trick question. There was no trickery or misdirection, and no point to be made. No one who answered either way should feel in anyway tricked. It's not like I had the "correct" answer, and just wanted to spring it on anyone who answered "wrong."




With respect, Bullgrit, I think it is fair for folks to feel they were tricked.  I was not, because I've seen these threads of yours before, but for others, there is a bit of a trick.

You intentionally worded your question vaguely so that in answering people would not infer the real reason for the question.  When your purpose in asking is _intentionally_ veiled from the audience without them knowing, you are misleading people - tricking them. Then you step in and go, "Oh, ho!  You see, I was running an experiment on you, to learn how you think!"  It can come across like a "Candid Camera" moment, whatever your intention.  And you should not be surprised.  As I recall, this is not the first time folks have taken umbrage at the technique.

It seems you have to become defensive every time you do this.  Perhaps it is time for you to change how you go about it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Aug 27, 2013)

MMMM, thick or not, it is still interesting in the feeling it was a trick question.  Simple question that people have to then pull from their knowledge to base an answer on.  Based on the answers put forth, other posters then base their answers on the subject, so the more answers with explanations proving their point, the more the divided becomes between yes or no.


----------



## tomBitonti (Aug 27, 2013)

Hmm,

Was wondering: For what _would_ one answer yes to the question?

Are most crystal balls spheres?  Are well inflated basketballs spheres?  Are marbles spheres?  Are any of these spheres?

http://www.ebay.com/bhp/crystal-sphere

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 27, 2013)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I think it is fair for folks to feel they were tricked.



Would anyone have answered the question differently? I mean, when I think of a "trick question," I think of being tricked into answering incorrectly or in a way I wouldn't normally or wouldn't want to answer. Does anyone feel tricked? Does anyone want to change their vote after learning that I know the precise dimensions of Earth? Does anyone who answered wish they had not answered? I even said I voted Yes, but I know Earth is not a mathematically precise sphere. (For general purposes, I think “sphere” is fine.) Does anyone who also voted Yes think, "Damn, he tricked me into seeming ignorant."? Or anyone who voted No think, "Damn, he tricked me into seeming pedantic."?

"I know the precise shape and dimensions of Earth, but I'm curious how you would answer the question: Is Earth a sphere?" Would phrasing the poll this way elicit different votes?

I also don’t see why some need me to construct a context outside of this one right here that we’re all in.



> You intentionally worded your question vaguely so that in answering people would not infer the real reason for the question.



See, that's strange to me. I thought I worded the question pretty damn precisely and succinctly. I intentionally left out language that could mislead or be misconstrued.



> "Oh, ho! You see, I was running an experiment on you, to learn how you think!" It can come across like a "Candid Camera" moment, whatever your intention. And you should not be surprised. As I recall, this is not the first time folks have taken umbrage at the technique.



People have accused me of having a point to make with some questions, yes. Some questions, I ask to learn *the* answer. Some questions, I ask to learn what people think. I don’t think I’ve ever asked a question here to trick anyone or to use the discussion to make a point for one answer or another. I could ask what is 2+2, and some people would accuse me of having a surprise point to make.

It’s not like I post a pic of some feminine transsexual model and ask, “Would you make out with this woman?”
Later: “Ha! It’s a man! You’d make out with a man! LOL!”

My idea is more along the lines of asking, “Is Chaz Bono a man or woman?”
Even if I later state that I know Chaz was born a woman and has had gender reassignment surgery, it doesn’t make the question a trick. 

The same with this, “Is Earth a sphere?” question. I don’t see how me later revealing that I know Earth’s diameter makes it a trick question.

(You know, that Chaz Bono question would make for an interesting discussion.)

What I have learned from this and other similar discussions is that when I ask a question, I should stay completely out of the ensuing discussion. Which is a shame because I start discussions to *have a discussion*.

Bullgrit


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Aug 27, 2013)

The intention of the question is irrelevant to the answer.  All the information you need is in the question.  If you need more information to answer the question, you are leaning toward misunderstanding the question and getting the answer incorrect.  Inventing a narrative, or motive, to parallel the question means you have failed to comprehend the question or the scope of the question.

The quality of the question is a separate discussion that usually includes intention or motive.


----------



## Janx (Aug 27, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> What I have learned from this and other similar discussions is that when I ask a question, I should stay completely out of the ensuing discussion. Which is a shame because I start discussions to *have a discussion*.
> 
> Bullgrit




Well, I'd hate to not have you participate, but in the same vein, if I call your question a trick question, you can't get defensive about it.  What I call your question is not really the important detail of the conversation.

I certainly don't mean "trick" to mean that you had ill intent or pulled a fast one on us.

but the question itself is tricky because it is too simplistic for the audience at hand.  If you were asking 1st graders, it might be that simple.  But pretty much everybody around here knows the earth ain't perfectly round, and that therefore if you were asking it, there was more to the question that was unseen.

One of the annoying things that happens at work is I get asked a Yes/No question about complex things.  And the questions are poorly qualified, so I end up needing to ask more questions and give a longer answer.  And that makes me look like I can't answer a simple question.

Now I can always use to improve my answering capabilities, but the other side really needs to exert some effort to understand the domain and ask better questions as well.

"Is Chaz Bono a man or woman?" is one of those questions.  Anybody reasonably versed in the material knows the topic isn't black and white.  There's a geneticly defined gender, a physical gender (what parts are there) and even a mental gender (the very thing that causes somebody to desire a sex change).

While some might think such a question invites discussion, instead it invites argument, semantic debates all under the guise of innocent question.

Would it not be better to be more upfront?  

Since Chaz Bono has female DNA and now has been reconfigured into male anatomy, how would one classify a Bono's gender?

Now, it's not being Tricky.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 27, 2013)

Wild Gazebo said:


> The intention of the question is irrelevant to the answer.  All the information you need is in the question.  If you need more information to answer the question, you are leaning toward misunderstanding the question and getting the answer incorrect.  Inventing a narrative, or motive, to parallel the question means you have failed to comprehend the question or the scope of the question.
> 
> The quality of the question is a separate discussion that usually includes intention or motive.




That's completely not how language works.  No sentence, question, or statement exists in a vacuum.  That's also not how human beings work, or how they communicate.  Computers?  Perhaps.  People?  Not so much.

_Everything_ has a context, and that context informs the thing.  The context in this case was hidden and later revealed.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 27, 2013)

a few people said:
			
		

> you can't get defensive about it



This kind of thing is frustrating. Accusations are made, and I shouldn't defend? 



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Since Chaz Bono has female DNA and now has been reconfigured into male anatomy, how would one classify a Bono's gender?



Well, first off, that whole first part, (before the comma), is unnecessary to state unless the person being asked doesn't know who Chaz Bono is -- they don't know why you'd ask about the person's sex. (If they don't know, they should either look it up, or not answer the question.) The second part . . . *that's* how to ask a vague question. "One" is an indefinite pronoun meaning generally "a person." Who is the "one" (this general, indefinite person)? Me? Or a lawyer? Or a doctor? Or a person on the street who doesn't know Chaz Bono?

Asking simply, "Is Chaz Bono a man or woman?" is pretty direct and clear. You're asking an answer of me, (or God, maybe).

Is Earth a sphere?
Would one define Earth as a sphere?

Is it raining?
Since water is falling from the sky, would one define the weather as raining?



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Everything has a context, and that context informs the thing. The context in this case was hidden and later revealed.



No, no, no. The context was not hidden, ever. Either I'm literally going insane, (or am just stupid), or people are really trying hard to make a controversy here. This forum, this site, this group of people, *this* *is* the *context*.

Imagine:

I walk down a hall and ask someone, "What time is it?" The person looks at their watch and tells me the time.

I ask another person, and they look at their watch and tell me the time.

I ask another person, and they look at their watch and tell me the time.

So on and so on.

I then "reveal" off hand that I didn't need to know the time, I was just curious how much different everyone's watches were set. 

The discovery could be interesting in that everyone's time was exactly the same, (all based on the universal atomic clock), or the time varied by up to 10 minutes. Or maybe we learn that most people use a cell phone instead of a watch to tell time.

Trick question? Was there any doubt about the context, (what time zone)?

Hol-lee crap. Honestly, I am stunned.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Aug 27, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> This kind of thing is frustrating. Accusations are made, and I shouldn't defend?




OK, it seems we're all miscommunicating.  Nobody's accusing you of anything; I for one thought this was all good-natured ribbing.  I apologize if I've made you feel frustrated or defensive; not my intention at all.


> No, no, no. The context was not hidden, ever. Either I'm literally going insane, (or am just stupid), people are really trying hard to make a controversy here. This forum, this site, this group of people, *this* *is* the *context*.




No, that is the _location_.  The context is that you were performing a little experiment, as you later revealed.



> Hol-lee crap. Honestly, I am stunned.




I'll keep an eye on this, but if it's making people (such as you) upset, I'll close the thread for you.  Bad feelings are not what anybody wants.


----------



## Bullgrit (Aug 27, 2013)

...


----------



## Morrus (Aug 27, 2013)

Bullgrit said:


> Again, I wonder/ask: Now that my (apparently devious and concealed) purpose for asking the question is known, would anyone change their answer to the poll?




Nobody has called you devious.  I can see you're upset at how the thread turned out; let's not get upset at stuff people haven't said, too!  

It's not so much about how people would have answered, it's how folks feel about having unwittingly been a guinea pig someone else's experiment.  It's not a big deal, though; merely worthy of mild observations which seem to be having the effect of upsetting you.

So yes, had I initially known the purpose, I probably would have changed my answer in that I wouldn't have participated.


----------



## Morrus (Aug 27, 2013)

And on that note, I think I'll close this thread.  Bullgrit seems upset, which is not what anybody wants.  If part of that was my fault, I'm sorry, Bullgrit.


----------

