Reply to comment

Try looking at it in terms of scientific theories. 

A scientific theory, as assessed by a scientist, is a hypothesis which largely holds true with repeated testing. One has to acknowledge, however, that new information may come in the future that proves that hypothesis to be false. Despite that, without having some kind of framework to base other experiments off of, it is very hard to make any kind of progress.

In that same way, I think we can look out our world and agree that the perspective that makes up the majority is usually conceded to be "real." For a long time the Earth was regarded as a flat object. It had edges that one could sail off of, into oblivion. This disc lay on the back of four elephants, which themselves stood on the back of a giant turtle that flew through space. Lacking any other evidence to the contrary, most people agreed that yes, the Earth was flat. And at that point in time, that was the reality. 

It was only after further explorations took place and more observations were made that the majority came to the consensus that no, actually, the Earth was round-ish. That is now our reality.

(But, as Professor Grobstein may remind you, very few of us in this class have made direct observations that the Earth is round: sailed or flew around the world in one go, been to space, so on.)

Without any other evidence, it makes sense to view the Earth as round.

I'm sorry if that was confusing. I recommend reading Oliver Sack's "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat," which gives some interesting views on perspective (HAH).