[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:17:19 +1000

me I need to save that amount of time, and my arthritic fingers only 2 of which 
work... I read scan and dump about 50 posts a day after querb gets rid of the 
spam. and answer about 10 to 20..  one way or another..

I need shortcuts.  

Philip. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jack Lewis 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:23 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?


  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
  >>
  >
  > 





  -- 
  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: