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