An incorrect model can describe something in a useful way and still be incorrect. For example, I can model human behavior off assuming there are 8 archetypes of man, and each one acts differently. This would be patently incorrect, and yet it is able to provide useful results sometimes.
Just like a stopped clock is right twice a day.
But that is purely by chance.
It would need to have some degree of truth for it to produce correct results other than by chance.
So either they are correct some of the time, or the results they produce are fluke.
You might be correct if you could back that up with historical example. As for mine, I have provided it - heliocentrism was introduced without solving problems and with introducing more. The fact FE exists shows that it is useful to some, and thus is solving some problem.
I don't need a historical example. I provided it purely based upon logic.
If you have models A and B and both suffer from a problem, then according to your reasoning, this problem is grounds to reject A and instead believe B, but equally valid would be rejecting B and accepting A.
This would lead you to reject both and accept both, an impossibility.
You have failed to provide any historical example of your own claim.
Heliocentricity provided explanatory power. It provided an explanation.
With a geocentric model, all the planets except Earth orbit the sun, with the sun then orbiting Earth.
This made no sense at all.
During their orbits, the planets would get closer to Earth than the sun.
If the Earth is capable of having the sun orbit it, why wouldn't the other planets also orbit Earth?
The Heliocentric model solved that by having all the planets orbit the sun. Now the sun is the most significant body (in the solar system), with all the planets orbiting it.
The geocentric model also has the problem of the path of the sun being so chaotic. Moving up and down in a crazy helix.
The heliocentric model explained that by having Earth rotate on an axis which was not parallel to the axis of the orbit.
This results in the sun appearing to trace circles in the sky with the axis of the circle parallel to Earth's rotational axis, with the orbital motion causing a variation in the apparent position of the circle the sun traces.
What additional problems did it introduce?
I have shown it by defining it as such.
So you have shown nothing.
You have simply asserted it.
Simply saying "the earth is flat and space is curved" is enough for any reasonable person to be able to understand what I'm getting at here.
Yes, that you are pathetically grasping at whatever straws you can to pretend Earth is flat; that you know it is round, but are still going to pretend it is flat.
And what do you mean by factually correct? You just replaced one word with a synonym. How would you determine factual correctness other than by measuring its usefulness?
This now comes down to how words are defined in English. How would you define a word to someone who has no idea what any words mean?
i would determine it based upon how much it matches reality, i.e. how correct it is.
Just because we find false things useful at times, especially when we purposefully construct them knowing they are false, does not necessitate that we don't believe things because they are useful.
Yes it does.
It shows that merely being useful is not enough to believe something.
We don't believe things because they are useful, there are other conditions which rational people use.
What is your rational basis for using induction?
Who says I am only using induction? Inductive reasoning is not the only form of rational reasoning and thus not the only way to present rational arguments.
To state my point differently, why would I need to show how FE solves the problem if it provides a path to a potential Kuhnian revolution?
But that wasn't what you were claiming before.
You were claiming you believe FE because of the problems of a RE.
That is not a valid reason to believe FE.
I have already explained why and you just continually ignore it.
How about you try and explain why you think RE having problems is enough to jump to FE, without FE solving those problems?
Perhaps you should also read up on what the revolution requires.
It isn't simply someone coming up with some stupid idea or reviving a dead one just because there is a problem with an existing idea.
The revolution is due to an idea being able to solve a major problem.
They also typically build upon previous ones.
For example, Einstein's relativity built upon two major parts of science.
The speed of light is constant regardless of your reference frame.
The speed of an object C, thrown by B at a velocity of vcb relative to B, when viewed by an outside observer A, with B travelling at a velocity of vba, would appear to travel at a velocity of vca=vcb+vba, relative to A.
These two statements both had experimental verification, but the latter only had experiment verification for relatively low velocities.
However the two statements resulted in a contradiction which results in a major problem.
Einstein didn't simply say, this is wrong, so this other model must be correct.
Instead, his relatively claimed that in reality vca=(vcb+vba)/(1+vcb*vba/c^2), thus when vcb and vba are much less than c, then vcb*vba<<c^2, and thus 1+vcb*vba/c^2~=1 and thus for low speeds, the old formula provides a very good approximation.
Meanwhile, if vcb=c, then you get:
vca=(c+vba)/(1+c*vba/c^2)=(c+vba)/(1+vba/c)=c*(c+vba)/(c*(1+vba/c))=c*(c+vba)/(c+vba)=c.
Which matches the observation that light always travels at the same speed.
So this revolution was because of Einstein's relativity being able to solve this contradiction.
The other key part is that it builds upon prior science, rather than discarding it.
So until you can show how FE solves a problem, it is not a valid reason to reject RE and replace it with FE.
You want to just discard all science and assert FE with no justification at all.
As far as risk analysis goes, its essentially Pascal's Wager all over again.
Sure, if you mean that it has been asserted by you in horribly flawed way which blatantly misrepresents the reality of the situation and a more rational, honest analysis would lead to the opposite conclusion, that based upon how well RE is at predicting reality and how bad FE models are, the risk analysis would indicate one should accept RE, not FE.
By assuming we know anything.
And have you proven we don't know anything?
Do you know we don't know anything?
No.
So how can you say I have failed? How can you know I have failed?
Or are you just baselessly asserting crap again?