Amusingly here in England June gets abbreviated to 'Jun'!!! How busy does one have to be to save that amount of time?
Jack----- Original Message ----- From: "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 2:31 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
Quoting philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:My apologies Regner. I was going to ask you if you ever get called Reg, orReggie , 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... - RegnerPhilip.----- Original Message ----- From: Regner TrampedachTo: 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 theearth> moves not acceptable as a "potential fact" in support of the case thatit > 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, dependingon> 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 intendedto > 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" canbe > 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 observesa> phenomenon, all will reach the same necessary conclusion.[28] In additionto> 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 termhas > 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 thinkin> fairness the two points above need to be addressed if the discussion isto > 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