Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - samvittighed

Pages: [1]
Before replying please watch " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

I think science will progress faster the better models we have. A good model should be internal consistent and be able to predict results correctly a.k.a. having explanatory power.

We have changed the world view before: Going from a geocentric solar system to a heliocentric. So I do not see why we should not be able to change world view yet again if a different model gives better results.

I assume that you agree that a model is a bad model if it predicts one thing, but when measured we get another thing. And that such a model should be discarded or at least corrected if there is a different model that predicts the outcome correctly.

I assume you are a rational person, who only holds on to a belief in so far that there is no better explanation, and that you for each of your beliefs can state what it would take to change them. That you in other words have no beliefs that could not be changed given enough evidence, and that you do not employ wishful thinking - i.e. a thing is not true, just because it would be nice if it was true.

The spherical earth model has served us well. It has a lot of explanatory power: It explains very well observations of sun, planets, stars, moon, shadows, tide, and why the gravitational constant differs depending on where we are.

That does not mean there could not be an even better model.

From the forum I have gathered that the flat earth model seems to assume the sun is a spotlight, it circles over the earth, the earth (together with the whole solar system) constantly accelerates at 9.8 m/s2, and that there is a conspiracy to cover this up.

All of these are highly controversial and extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. All I see are halfbaked explanations, guesswork, and the general call to "wake up", extremely few verifiable numbers, even fewer experiments carried out, and no single unifying explanation that is internally consistent.

This does not mean the basic premise is false, but it does mean that a lot more substantial scientifically testable evidence has to be gathered.

But let me just focus on the conspiracy part.

How many would have to be in on a conspiracy to make you consider that a conspiracy this big is not very likely?

Try to think of historical (noncontroversial) conspiracies that were later revealed. How big were the biggest you can think of here? Were they revealed because one of the conspirators f*cked up or blew the whistle?

As far as I can see from the discussions the conspiracy against flat earth would have to at least include: all airline pilots traveling east-west south of the equator, all satellite related personnel, all sailors claiming that they can only see the top part of objects placed over the horizon, all astronauts/kosmonauts/taikonauts and all personnel around them, and all astronomers. Probably even all meteorologists that use satellite imagery to do weather forecasting.

We are not talking just a few 100 people here. We are talking 10000s. Is it really likely that none of them have been so disgruntled that they would have gone to the press with proof of the conspiracy to get their 15 minutes of fame?

If you believe the press is part of the conspiracy then you can add 10000s to the number. And if that was the case why have the disgruntled not published the proofs on Freenet or similar services with no censorship.

We are in a different situation today than in Giordano Bruno's days: You will not get killed if you come up with a model with better explanatory power. But you cannot present halfbaked internally conflicting theories with very little evidence to back up the claims and then assume people will take you seriously.

Again: Before replying please watch " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">


(BTW the does not work on

Pages: [1]