In the beginning there were only naked eye observations available from which to build a model of the Solar System. As all motion is relative, it can be difficult to discern what objects are at rest, and what objects move relative to the objects which are at rest. This difficulty partially can explain why the early geocentric model (earth at center of solar system) was used as a device to explain planetary motions - even though it was not necessarily the correct model.
Of course, this earth-centered model also plays into a cultural bias in that if you think your special in the Universe, then you necessarily occupy a special place in the Universe - that is, your located at the center of the Universe.
The early Greeks made much of this model so that's where we will begin our exploration of the solar system. In addition to this form of science, the Greeks also fundamentally examined the nature of the Universe (or Kosmos) and assumed that it had to behave in an orderly, rational, and logical manner.
One of the chief features of Early Greek Science (Hellenistic period starting around 600 BC) is its reductionist nature. That is, given a complex system (like the Earth, the weather, the Universe) the Greeks sought to reduce it down to a small number of fundamental elements out of which everything can be built. Ideally, the number of fundamental elements could be reduced to 1.
Anaximines of Miletus, c. 525 B.C. proposed that everything is made out of four elements and it was the interaction among this four elements that produces all the observed complexity in the world.
This idea would prevail for many centuries.
For example, it was believed that earth was some sort of condensation of air, while fire was some sort of emission from air. When earth condenses out of air, fire is created in the process.
This, however was not universally accepted. The most notable detractor was Democritus who postulated the existence of indestructible atoms ( from the Greek a-tome: that which cannot be cut) of an infinite variety of shapes and sizes. He imagined an infinite universe containing an infinite number of such atoms, in between the atoms there is an absolute void. Worse still is the notion that the Universe itself is a series of random interactions which can not be predicted. This runs dead counter to the requirement stated earlier that the Universe is orderly, rational, and logical
So now we have a genuine conflict: Either the Universe is random
(this is known as the atomist view)
, or the Universe is
deterministic and has predictable behavior once your know the rules. The data (e.g.
observations) support both views 
Cultural bias therefore influences
what view is adopted. Often times then data is distorted to then support this culturally
preferred view or model.