There's also the issue of the comparative strength of the evidence.

In 1412, let's say, you'd probably have to be insane to believe that the earth revolves around the sun. The best possible evidence was just the opposite: everybody could see with their own eyes what was going around what. Later, when Copernicus suggested the opposite, it was mainly because the theory that the earth is the center required - he thought - too many complicated movements of the stars and planets. Copernicus bet that God operated more simply and directly than that. He showed that imagining the sun at the center of the solar system was a simpler and more elegant pattern. Of course, he couldn't prove it was true.

Since then, the success of countless calculations based his idea, including moon landings and space probe successes based on them, have proved that he was right.

However, the contrary evidence still exists: I see the sun going across the sky every day, and so does everybody else. What's more, we have several billion more witnesses than in 1412!

But it doesn't matter. You have to go with the more powerful evidence, and science has always provided more powerful evidence than strong beliefs and conjecture.