[geocentrism] Re: Is geocentrism supported by facts?
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:33:35 +1000
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 ..
Other related posts:
