[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:28:47 +0200
Thanks for your response, Philip. My name, however, is Regner...
You ask:
``2. Why is evidence that claims doubt on "alleged facts" proving
the earth moves not acceptable as a "potential fact" in support of
the case that it doesn't.''
I have actually never said that, and I would very much encourage that
kind of arguments.
If it will make it easier, substitute facts for observations.
Regards,
Regner Trampedach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Regna asks, "Is geocentrism supported by facts? give 5. "
>
> This seemed at first glance an easy question, given we were allowed 5
> opportunities to show what are those facts in support of it.
>
> Following on from some of Regna's comments concerning points so far raised,
> I see two problems for us needing clarification.
>
> 1, What is meant by a fact that is acceptable ( to Regna) for discussion.
> This needs to be defined. a "a terms of reference" if you will. (see
> supporting note below)
>
> and
>
> 2. Why is evidence that claims doubt on "alleged facts" proving the earth
> moves not acceptable as a "potential fact" in support of the case that it
> doesn't.
>
> After all if we claim the earth cannot be proved to move, that fact must
> support the case for it being still. (again reasons in note below. )
>
> Philip.
>
> Note: On the meaning of "fact" as is generally accepted today.
> Generally, a fact is something that is the case, something that actually
> exists, or something that can be verified according to an established
> standard of evaluation.[1][2] There is a range of other uses, depending on
> the context. People are interested in facts because of their relation to
> truth.
>
> and
>
> In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable
> observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to
> explain or interpret facts.[19]
>
> Yet, we have, for scientific fact,
>
> a.. the process by which "established fact" becomes recognized and accepted
> as such;[22]
> b.. whether and to what extent "fact" and "theoretic explanation" can be
> considered truly independent and separable from one another;[23][24]
> c.. to what extent are "facts" influenced by the mere act of
> observation;[25] and
> d.. to what extent are factual conclusions influenced by history and
> consensus, rather than a strictly systematic methodology.[26]
> Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert
> "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree.
> Apart from the fundamental inquiry in to the nature of scientific fact, there
> remain the practical and social considerations of how fact is investigated,
> established, and substantiated through the proper application of the
> scientific method.[27] Scientific facts are generally believed to be
> independent from the observer in that no matter which scientist observes a
> phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.[28] In addition to
> these considerations, there are the social and institutional measures, such
> as peer review and accreditation, that are intended to promote factual
> accuracy (among other interests) in scientific study.[29
> The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity
> in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has
> no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers
> and scholars agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#Fact_in_science
> The subject essay is emmense, but that is sufficient in support for my
> enquiry.
>
> I do not personally have any proof the earth is not moving. I just think in
> fairness the two points above need to be addressed if the discussion is to
> progress.
>
> If there were any facts in support of our case, only one would be needed,
> even reasonable doubt, perhaps.
>
> Plm ..
>
Other related posts:
