co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Saturday, January 8, 2022
Brian Holdsworth on "Fact Checking"
Getting Fact-Checked
7th Jan. 2022 | Brian Holdsworth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RP5Cia-wqE
One comment by me:
7:35 c. I am reminded of a Catholic religious I know, who was very sure, we could by now be sure of heliocentrism being true, bc the instruments are so much better.
Hubble and all the rest are in fact providing with few exceptions either geocentric or near geocentric observations.
Heliocentrism comes from an argument, and improving the instruments doesn't change the arguments. Not per se, automatically, everytime, and arguably not this time.
If the argument is bad - as I think it is - heliocentrism remains a lousy argument, however many good (and immediately geocentric) instruments you bolster it with.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment