[geocentrism] Re: Reality-check on science
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:16:31 +1100
It is not a scientific theory - period.
And I know you believe there not to be observations that can support
HC, but we'll come back to that later.
- Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear Regner,
> This is not strictly true. You are saying if a theory can be falsified it
> will have to be rejected or at the very least greatly modified. What would
> you say about a theory that cannot be falsified under any circumstance? This
>
> is quite an important question.
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 10:00 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Reality-check on science
>
>
> > Dear Neville Jones,
>
> SNIP
> > If, on the other hand, we find
> > that one of the founding assumptions of the theory, does not hold, then we
> > will have to discard the theory all together, pending confirmation by
> > other
> > groups. And then it is back to the drawing board to try to come up with a
> > theory that encompasses both the old and the new observations.
> > That is science. It might be slow, but the key is that it is a convergent
> > process.
> > Sorry for such a lengthy reply.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Regner Trampedach
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> > - -
>
>
Other related posts:
