[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:31:51 +0200
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> My apologies Regner. I was going to ask you if you ever get called Reg, or
> Reggie , for short. A common english nickname.
>
No worries.
I do occasionally get called 'Reg', but not with my consent.
I know 6 letters are 3 too many in some parts of the world, but alas...
- Regner
> Philip.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Regner Trampedach
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:28 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
>
>
> 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 ..
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.10/1091 - Release Date:
> 24/10/2007 2:31 PM
>
Other related posts:
