Tuesday, October 7, 2014

... on Observation and Theory, and a Philosophy Professor overdoing how "modern science" makes better sense than alternative

Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism ~ Are Both Right? Dr. Stokes Explains
Papa Giorgio

I 6:40 ...
... as decades went by new data - says Mitch - made it hard for Geocentrism to keep up.

In what exact way?

Explainability by Newtonian mechanics?

But why restrict explanations to them while both camps used to agree angelic movers were ok?

Was it data coming by? Or was it angelic movers getting out of fashion? Has Newtonian mechanics explanations been keeping up with even newer data? Mitchelson-Morley (no aether or static earth) + Sagnac (aether), negative parallax in one version of Hipparcus catalogue?
II 9:16 ...
... "data never fully nails a theory" + earlier Witty's "what would it have looked like if earth was rotating?"

Observation : one of the theories gives a very much simpler - and Witty may have missed what was meant by "more natural", but actually more natural too - relation between observation and reality causing it. One of them gives a wysiwyg version.
III 14:34
And what if the data would be incompatible with an atheistic interpretation?

Look at a couple of atheists one giving up and other dancing like a cat round hot porridge about my right to put a question, rather than give a straight answer:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Who is Too Presuppositional, Plus Telomeres and Chromosome Numbers (The Debate PZM Finally Refused Me on His Blog)
Jennifer Isaacs
I wonder how scientific literacy is not understood in first world countries... or just literacy much at all. Also a bit of wondering how people are thinking psychologically and lack of skeptically analyzing facts.

It is true that there are ways to test things and even to make predictions like that of a hypothesis. Still though it seems the language of words like theory among others gets misunderstood ( at times intentionally).

Some may not realize they can test and measure even in humble homes. How wealthy one is does not matter.

Just being intellectually honest and accurate does so as to provide ability to retest the same experiments.

Kids can even do science experiments.

Is it difficult to understand nature and reality? It seems for some maybe so.

Some rather complain or be anti science instead of test things out. Why is that so?

I may never understand human hate for others, ideas, and things in illogical thinking.
Hans Georg Lundahl
To Jennifer Isaacs* below:

"Is it difficult to understand nature and reality? It seems for some maybe so. Some rather complain or be anti science instead of test things out. Why is that so?"

Doing the experiments and understanding are not same thing.

You can test at home how trigonometry works, that won't settle whether it is Earth in two positions and alpha Centauri in one giving you useable trigonometry or Earth in one position and alpha Centauri in two giving you no usable trigonometry.

deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications

You can also test how measures of movement fail due to undetected movement elsewhere ... is negative parallax stars being less still than the usual undetected movement of medium 0.9 arcseconds, and should the 0.9 arcseconds be added to the movement of alpha Centauri? Then alpha Centauri will only be half as far away as assumed. Or is this another example of star in different positions and Earth in same one - and trigonometry is not useful for measuring either distance.

(outside my blogs) Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe
thread erected by one excubitor who, like me, was banned

* [Link to her profile as given directly above.]

No comments: