[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:23:35 +0100

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, 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:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 10-2007