Simon, language can be closer or further away from depicting reality. But it can never match it perfectly. No use of words can completely eliminate ambiguity, ever. That's just one reason why no description of anything should be described as 100% - either in terms of confidence or probability. It's both.
Cofty there are senses in which the earth is flat rather than round. Just because it is round from one perspective does not make that the only valid description. The mouse eye view as it were, that's just one thing. Additionally our imagination should be able to conceive that future ways of conceptualising the world might find more use for the concept of flat than the concept of round. Both of which are technically inaccurate of course. I am not saying that a future discovery might show that the ancients were right to think that the earth stretched out flat like a scroll opened up. Because that's how it looked to them and made sense. But rather that our own conception of the world as a round object in space might come to be viewed as just as quaint because of the discovery of more information. How on earth could that happen? I don't know, obviously. Which is rather the point. Allowing for the possibility of future discoveries to surprise. They wouldn't be both "discoveries" and "future" if they didn't surprise! Because the new discovery has not been made yet. It's like asking an ancient person to understand gravity and the idea that we are stuck to a ball held in space apparently by nothing. (Spontaneously from his own head, not sitting down with him with a modern textbook) It sounds like pure nonsense. The idea just would never occur to him. Maybe there are aspects of reality pertaining to the nature of the earth we similarly cannot get our heads around. New information that would alter our current arrogant insistence that the most satisfyingly accurate way to describe the object we live upon is to call it a sphere. Who knows! Who can rule it out? Everyone who has climbed a hill or a mountain knows the sensation of being positive that they can see the peak clearly in front then. Only to reach the "peak" and discover it was a false dawn (to mix metaphors) and the "true peak" lies yet further ahead. The conception that the earth look like an "oblate spheroid" sure looks like the "peak" in terms of accurate descriptions of the earth. But then the idea that the earth was like a scroll, flattened out and with four corners, made sense too, back in the day. So who's to say ours is the absolute last word on the matter, that we've finally cracked it once and for all? Who would be so daft, really?