... on Geocentrism and Heliocentrism · ... against Another Attempt to Make History of Astronomy Proof for "Heliocentrism" of Some Sort (Beyond Tychonic) · Are National Geographic conspiring with de Grasse Tyson and NASA to not mention Geocentrics?
Flat Earth vs. Round Earth | Explorer
National Geographic | 16.I.2019
- OK, you go from Flat Earthers to James Bullock, conveniently skipping Geocentrics who believe the Earth is a globe ... or is that for another programme?
(And that the Universe was created some few thousand years ago, less than 10 000)
- 1) Neat work with stripes.
- 2) "back into the Dark Ages" - exactly what "Dark Ages"? How about NG and the journalist getting a clue on history?
- 3) "you're essentially perpetuating ignorance" - ignorance is perpetual, omniscience is not on the human palette in human history ever up to Doomsday.
- 4) "by denying science" - making other "science deniers" equivalents of flat earthers.
There is no neat proof like the stripes against Geocentrism (unless you constrain the concept artificially to span only Ptolemaic), and there is no neat proof like the stripes for Evolution (in the larger sense when beings evolve eyes from not having eyes, often considered as a follow up on abiogenesis, which can fairly neatly be disproven scientifically).
I think the danger is people thinking thought is dangerous "for all of us".
I think the danger is seeing science as a sort of salvation, and "science history" as an absolute key to science.
- I noted "neil tyson debunks geocentrism" gives a lot of hits of him debunking flat earth, but none specifically on geocentrism as such.
I noted another search (on youtube) "national geographic geocentrism" gave nothing specifically on geocentrism either.
So NG and NdGT are countering flat earth and not countering geocentrism.
And "NASA geocentrism" gave some geocentrics debunking NASA (some of whom flat earth) but no NASA debunking geocentrism.
I think I did see parodic ones from NASA on flat earth though.
NG, NdGT and NASA are big players in popularising science, so, why are all three targetting flat earth and ignoring geocentrism?
Unlike Eratosthenes' and Magellan's arguments for a Round Earth, unlike even Galileo's (bad) arguments against Geocentrism, this looks a bit like a modern conspiracy.