Very basic meta-questions

  • 5 Replies
  • 936 Views
?

nph

  • 17
Very basic meta-questions
« on: June 28, 2013, 04:02:08 PM »
I understand that scientific theories are stories that ultimately make us feel comfortable with what we experience. New theories are developed to replace old ones that fail to "make sense" of what we experience. I'm wondering (among other things) what FET accounts for that RET fails to. Also, how could the majority of science either be wrong and not know it or be wrong, know it, and lie about it?

Thanks.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Very basic meta-questions
« Reply #1 on: June 28, 2013, 10:29:20 PM »
I understand that scientific theories are stories that ultimately make us feel comfortable with what we experience. New theories are developed to replace old ones that fail to "make sense" of what we experience. I'm wondering (among other things) what FET accounts for that RET fails to. Also, how could the majority of science either be wrong and not know it or be wrong, know it, and lie about it?

Thanks.

The majority of science back then thought there were sea monsters in the ocean, bled people of "bad blood", and vehemently defended their position. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible with current science/scientists.

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Very basic meta-questions
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2013, 02:31:02 AM »
As Richard Feynman said: "... the problem is not what might be wrong but what might be substituted precisely in place of it".

The FES society fails to do this on a multitude of levels; as is evident from the sparsity of their wiki.

?

nph

  • 17
Re: Very basic meta-questions
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2013, 04:36:36 AM »
As Richard Feynman said: "... the problem is not what might be wrong but what might be substituted precisely in place of it".

The FES society fails to do this on a multitude of levels; as is evident from the sparsity of their wiki.

Fails to do what?

I understand that scientific theories are stories that ultimately make us feel comfortable with what we experience. New theories are developed to replace old ones that fail to "make sense" of what we experience. I'm wondering (among other things) what FET accounts for that RET fails to. Also, how could the majority of science either be wrong and not know it or be wrong, know it, and lie about it?

Thanks.

The majority of science back then thought there were sea monsters in the ocean, bled people of "bad blood", and vehemently defended their position. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible with current science/scientists.

Of course current science (probably) is wrong, I'm asking something more specific about FET. What does FET do that RET doesn't?

?

RyanTG

  • 312
  • If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Re: Very basic meta-questions
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2013, 05:54:23 AM »

Fails to do what?


I was sort of answering this part of your question: " I'm wondering (among other things) what FET accounts for that RET fails to"

There is nothing that FET accounts for that RET already perfectly accounts for. The problem with a flat earth is that it invalidates all current explanations for numerous phenomenons, all while failing to provide a substitute to detail comparable to what already is out there.

I'll give you an example.
Current explanation for the Coriolis effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect
Flat Earth's explanation: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_Coriolis_Effect

You can see the contrast.

?

nph

  • 17
Re: Very basic meta-questions
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2013, 04:43:31 PM »
Let me rephrase the first question in this thread. Are there predictions/explanations that FET can offer but RET can't?