[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:25:44 +0200
"unverifiable assumptions [that] are used as a priori" are called axioms.
Could you tell me what the axioms of science are?
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear Regner,
> A further response to your e-mail.
> May I suggest that mainstream science does have a level of faith in as much
> as a number of unverifiable assumptions are used as a priori. I have to say
> that geocentrism calls into question the appropriateness of these
> assumptions. In short I don't think that you are going to be able to use the
>
> true meaning of 'science', as described by Carl Popper, to objectively
> achieve your goal.
> May I quote Prof. Richard Dawkins who said in an e-mail to me, 'Evolution is
>
> as much a theory as is the earth orbiting the sun'. I mention this merely as
>
> an interesting comment that, in his view, heliocentrism is just a theory.
> But we shall see.
>
> Jack Lewis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:17 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Is geocentrism supported by facts?
>
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the
> > 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct. And please adhere
> > to the rules above - and don't go into much detail - we can do that later.
> > I'll collate the replies in a few days into a list of the 5 reasons that
> > are cited most often in your replies.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Regner Trampedach
>
>
Other related posts:
