[geocentrism] Re: Climate change
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:09:08 +1000
I can find no fault with your view stated here Martin, but once again I am/was
forced to really take your words at independent face value.. I tend to jump at
phrases, and get the wrong message. for example your closing required close
scrutiny for me to get the correct message. .
"Where we've differed, I've usually found his arguments to be valid but not
sound (an important distinction in logic: a valid argument is inexorably true
if the premises are true, while a sound argument is a valid argument where the
premises are actually true). But few are patient enough to drill down below the
primary level of the debate, so we don't get too far in such dialogues."
At first I thought you had uttered a contradiction because I failed to
distinguish the difference between validity (of the argumentative material),
and the validity of the argumental method.. ie a good argument or a bad
argument.
Whilst patience in reading dialogue is a necessity by all means, nothing is
really resolved where there is difficulty and even contradiction in determining
which premises are actually true, from those which are possibly true.
"If" the Bible is true, then Pilate was exceptionally wise when he said "what
is truth?"
"If" the Bible is just another book, then its ancient authors were
exceptionally wise compared to the majority today.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Selbrede
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Climate change
On Jun 2, 2007, at 10:38 AM, Paul Deema wrote:
Mars is the centre of the universe
I know what Paul is getting at here (you'd have to read the whole paragraph
in context to know the point he's trying to get across, of course). This is the
core of the acentric argument, but it must be addressed substantively, not
dismissively. It's not been made rigorous that the "flower pattern discovery"
does or does not constitute that counter-proof (you'd have to test for such
patterns from the surface of Mars to see what's what).
I think there are weightier approaches to establishing the Earth's
uniqueness. Unfortunately, I lent out my copy of Dr. Bouw's "Geocentricity" so
I can't pull the reference today, but Bouw (with an earned doctorate in
observational astronomy) points out that there are numerous orbital resonances
(phase relationships) between the Earth and the other planets, and that these
resonances disappear when the reference point is any body other than the Earth.
This would be a test, conducted on Mars's surface, that would posit significant
(perhaps central) uniqueness to the Earth and not to Mars when conducted by
Martians.
More to the point, measurement of planetary motion on Mars with a Michelson
interferometer (an experiment repeatedly proposed by geocentrists: take the
Michelson interferometer off the Earth's surface and see what happens) would be
decisive. A significant number of geocentrists hold that the null result on
Earth's surface is unique to the Earth -- if they're right, the Mars scientists
won't get a null result at all when they count the interference fringes. (Note:
geocentrists are proposing tests to falsify their own theory. Where are the
acentrists? Declining to consider any such tests with a See No Evil, Hear No
Evil, Speak No Evil approach.)
While other experiments could be multiplied (I've just mentioned two types of
evidence in passing), the main point is that the results of THESE measurements
are NOT optical illusions. In fact, it was this very issue (that the
Michelson-Morley null result was not an optical illusion) that forced MS to
propose that meter sticks shrink and clocks slow down, effects that conspire to
hide the motion of the Earth. By asserting such motion is not measurable (per
M-M), MS has been forced to say, "Take the earth's motion on faith." To make
sure people take the message "on faith," public schools treat the Copernican
Revolution as the great turning point against the darkened minds of an ignorant
age. Just repeat the story with sufficient cultural authority that it has to be
accepted. As the Latin saying goes, "That which was originally destitute of
authority, in the process of time acquires it."
By the way, I see no reason to shun any dialogues with Paul Deema. I
understand the contours of his thinking and logic: I don't think the problem
lies in the structure of his logic, but in the axioms and presuppositions
underlying them. It's in the area of "precontemplative commitments" that the
beefs against him arise, but we do him a disservice to question the power of
his intellect. Sure, I've disagreed sharply with him before, but I understood
fully at what level I disagreed with him. Where we've differed, I've usually
found his arguments to be valid but not sound (an important distinction in
logic: a valid argument is inexorably true if the premises are true, while a
sound argument is a valid argument where the premises are actually true). But
few are patient enough to drill down below the primary level of the debate, so
we don't get too far in such dialogues.
Martin
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/829 - Release Date: 2/06/2007 5:26
PM
Other related posts:
