[geocentrism] Re: Geostationary Satellites
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:59:19 +0000 (GMT)
Philip M
Philip, this is the third night I've sat and contemplated how I can best
respond to your post 'From philip madsen Mon Mar 5 22:14:27 2007'. At the
outset, I must concede your main thrust contains reasoning I cannot readily
discount. I can't see how I might describe just what I'm thinking on this
matter without extensive research with many examples requiring more time than I
have. Even then, you would be unconvinced I think -- a little research which
casts doubt on any point I make would render the exercise suspect.
So -- I'll just content myself with making the usual interspersions. Sorry I
can't do better, but I've given it about ten or twelve hours, and that's really
much more than I can afford.
========================================================
G'day Paul.. I will come back later on the circle diagram etc but this needed
an immediate response.
You said,
"You know, one of the greatest difficulties between the religious and the
scientific camps, is this concept of absolutes vs relatives.
You have broken the camps into two camps as science versus religion. This is
not what we are about here. This is about two science camps. One where science
accepts the metaphysical within its disciplines, a complete philosophy of
science, (which was still dominant in the time of Faraday) and your camp which
has limited science to exclude the supernatural and or para normal which makes
it an incomplete philosophy of science.
Science is about the discipline of describing reality. If the supernatural or
para normal could be demonstrated to be a part of reality, it would be studied.
Indeed it has been studied but found to be without foundation. As such, and
until the contrary can be shown, it cannot be part of science. How would you
evaluate an expression which includes " ... divided by two breaths of God ... "
or " ... plated to a depth of two microns with dragon's teeth disolved in
alkahest ... ".?
You continue,
The religious camp constantly demands absolute clarity, perfect understanding
and complete knowledge from the scientific camp, heaping derision, ridicule and
scorn upon it when this is not forthcoming. "
This surprises me, that you should think this. The scientific camp that springs
from and uses a metaphysical base within its disciplines, that is, including
the existence of God as an axiom of truth, would contradict the basic tenets of
such a faith if they were to be so uncharitable as to heap scorn on those who
sadly do not know or comprehend God. How would you describe incessant claims
that those who dissagree with you are lying? Is the accusation of lying not
uncharitable or scornful? You don't have to look far for examples.
Isn't it usually the other way? The scientist is scorned if he is a Christian
scientist, and includes this discipline within his research into the truth of a
principle of matter. Does not the camp which you are defending, demand that
things paranormal or metaphysical MUST be excluded as outside of science?
Recently I watched on the SBS network a film showering heaps of scorn on a
scientific foundation founded by real scientists, not religious fanatics, The
Intelligent Design. Foundation. But how do you include a Christian principle
into scientific research? If you reach a point in your research where you
cannot see a way ahead, it is not scientific to decide that God did it. There
is no paranormal parameter you can invoke when you are designing bigger
bridges. The Intelligent Design concept is a valid scientific enquiry up to the
point where you decide that it's all God's work. This you can never
demonstrate, only hypothesise or assert.
Where has any person here who has a background in the physical sciences ever
"constantly demanded absolute clarity, perfect understanding and complete
knowledge " of any of the physics subjects discussed. ? Never. We HAVE demanded
that any physical examination to understand an operation must include the
totatality of knowledge, which includes those areas of philosophy which you not
only deny, but refuse them as allowable within the discussion. "Not Science!"
Well I don't know how you define knowledge -- I know there are differing views
on this -- but for me, knowledge is sometning which is known because it has
been demonstrated.
Take the aether for example. We have debated the MYSTERY of its composition and
action, far removed from the clarity and "perfect understanding" you claim we
demand. Where we are ready to consider the aether a necessity within our frame
of reference, to an explanation of many physical phenomena, it is yourself who
demands "absolute clarity, perfect understanding and complete knowledge". I'm
aware that you don't demand "absolute clarity ... " of your position, but you
commonly demand it of your opponents. Sort of nit picking. Avoiding the real
issue and concentrating on the peripheral. And I don't demand "absolute clarity
... '. "Discussion on this subject would be a lot easier if someone would
define the aether, its properties, behaviour etc, with some numbers if
possible, and some experimental reports to substantiate these claims." was a
recent request. You can see that this is basically a request for something
meatier than fairy-floss, but way short of "absolute clarity
...". Finally, science did consider the existance of the aether for some time
but its existance is now largely denied along with transmutation, phlogiston,
phrenology and a host of companions.
Why?
Philip.
=============================================================
Have pity on me -- don't make the next one so difficult! |[:-)
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
