Originally posted by inimalist
quote: (post)
Originally posted by chickenlover98
when he posts that, argue it ini. its his "unbeatable fact""Well, if it is about the cosmic microwave background, I'll tell you not to hold your breath. I'll explain this better in a min, but unless your friend has been making independent measures of the CMB based on specific predictive hypotheses, it is a post hoc mashing of evidence to fit a predetermined idea."
>>This is an astonishing sentence. Please carefully grasp its implications. Inimalist has told us here that evidence is utterly irrelevant, it means nothing, unless:
Trans personally takes independent measures of the CMB (in other words, the mere fact that scientific research has provided this evidence, is not good enough for inimalist's weird "modern scientific method". Apparently, everyone has to seek donations for their own Hubble Space Telescope or Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe;
And even if they do, unless the "predictive hypothesis" passes inimalist's a priori test, then the evidence is just…..sort of…..not admissible dude, because its just not like….scientific, in the modern sense, ya know?
Originally posted by inimalist
"Likely it is unbeatable, in the sense that there is no single piece of empirical evidence or no single logical computation that shows it to be wrong."
>>For those of us not practiced in inimalist's techniques of employing facts, evidence, and logic as tools with which to "bullshit bullshit bullshit", the above sentence would seem to be an admission that the argument was CORRECT, or, at the very least, worthy of serious consideration.
It must take a great deal of tuition money indeed to become sophisticated enough to argue that, when "no single piece of empirical evidence or no single logical computation" can show an argument to be wrong, we ought therefore consider this to be persuasive evidence of that argument's FALSEHOOD.
Originally posted by inimalist
"However, science isn't about showing things to be wrong, but in fact about 1) making new hypothesis based on experimental evidence'
>>Of course, it has apparently escaped inimalist's notice that I have, on this thread, advanced the hypothesis of a preferred, geocentric position for earth in the cosmos based upon the experimental evidence of:
1. A Sagnac effect-corrected geocentric reference frame employed by JPL in its INTERPLANETARY as well as GPS navigational software,
2. Redshifts everywhere we look in the sky,
3. Quasars forming concentric; regularly spaced shells with earth at the center,
4. Gamma ray burst, Bl Lac, and X-Ray objects similarly distributed spherically around a central Earth.
Originally posted by inimalist
" and 2) trying to test AGAINST your new hypothesis. Essentially it is about testing and showing why something has to be correct by trying to confirm any hypothesis that would prove it wrong."
>>It has likewise escaped inimalist's notice that I have addressed literally hundreds of such tests, including:
1. Every physical experiment designed to prove a motion of the Earth with respect to the Sun (250 years of such experiments from Fizeau to Airy to Arrago, Fresnel, Bradley, Michelson, and Morley have all failed; resulting in the creation of a "post hoc" new physics, Relativity, which asserts as dogma that all such attempted proofs are, by definition, impossible)
2. Every physical experiment designed to prove a motion of the Earth about its own axis, (including Foucault's pendulum, the Coriolis force, and the centrifugal forces)
3. Every physical experiment which might purport to prove that JPL doesn't need a geocentrically derived Sagnac effect correction to make its satellite navigation systems function properly (no such experiment has ever been done, but ought to be, don't you agree? If you do, then, apparently, you too suffer from a lack of appreciation for inimalist's "modern scientific method". Good for you!)
QUOTE=10419390]Originally posted by inimalist
"So, to continue from above, lets talk about the points trans is making.
To begin with, it is all post hoc. Post hoc means that, (lets even assume trans is a respectable scholar [which I showed not to be true]) " [/QUOTE]
>>Inimalist is right when he says I am not a great scholar. This proves that even a blind pig sometimes gets an acorn. Inimalist is absurd when he says that all my evidence is "post hoc", since every scientific hypothesis is based upon prior observation, and hence- you guessed it- could qualify as "post hoc" in the weird and wacky world of inimalist's "modern scientific method". I guess what he really means, is that it is "post hoc" as long as he disagrees with your interpretation of it.
Originally posted by inimalist
"trans would have taken all the previous observations of space, decided that the earth was the center, and then interpreted all of the facts to make sure they fit the evidence."
>>Of course, two sentences ago inimalist assured us that good scientists make hypotheses to fit observational evidence. He is now telling us that bad ones do the same. The difference is, apparently, whether one is named trans, or, more likely, whether one is advancing an unapproved hypothesis. J
Originally posted by inimalist
Now honestly, this is how most people think science is done."
>>It is exactly how science is done. More precisely, science is done like this:
(a) Something is observed to occur in the Universe, which ought not be occurring, under present scientific understandings;
(b) An hypothesis is formulated and advanced to explain the observed anomaly;
(c) The hypothesis is tested, against the sum total of occurrences observed, to ensure that it both explains the new anomaly, and all other observed occurrences;
(d) The outcome results, theoretically at least, in the adoption of the new hypothesis as SCIENTIFICALLY SUPERIOR, or else in its rejection due to a failure to accomplish #3 above.
Originally posted by inimalist
"Find facts, make interpretations. BUT IT IS NOT! The problem with post hoc-ing stuff is that there are literally an infinite number of ways to interpret any data. So, in this case, lets look at the work of Kepler."
>>I assume you mean the Kepler who advanced the hypothesis of orbital pathways based upon the geometric ratios of the Platonic solids. That would be, I guess, "post-hoc" reasoning in your book. Thank God Kepler had a different approach to science than you do, otherwise we might still be waiting for someone to hypothesize elliptical planetary orbits…..I would also venture to guess that the hypothesis of "cold dark matter", to explain the shocking fact that the Universe lacks 95% of the observable matter required to make the Einstein gravitational equations work, would represent "post hoc" for inimalist- EXCEPT, of course, that the Standard Theory allows cold dark matter, therefore inimalist wouldn't call THAT post-hoc.
It is a very elastic, bendable and shapeable notion of "science", that our inimalist is selling here. Thank God no actual scientific discoverer- and certainly not Kepler- ever bought it.
Originally posted by inimalist "When Kepler was being taught, there were very detailed observations of mars, but no real model to explain why those observations were the way they were. "
>>The only sufficiently detailed observations, as Kepler himself is eager to affirm, were those of the great geocentrist Tycho Brahe, whose modified geocentric system provides the basis upon which, centuries later, we can answer the utterly unpredicted, anti-Relativistic evidence of a geocentric universe. In other words, Tycho Brahe's observations provided the RAW DATA upon which both the Keplerian and geocentric systems adopted elliptical planetary orbits.
Originally posted by inimalist "So, Kepler designed a model of geocentric mars orbit (fig 1) that fit entirely with the observations. Later in his life, he changed his model to one of elliptical orbits of the sun (which to Kepler was the true religious center anyways)."
>>You fail completely to grasp the method of Kepler, although you correctly point out that it was a religious/metaphysical, not a scientific, necessity which led him to adopt heliocentrism. His entire approach was to "hypothesize" that what he already knew about the unique characteristics of harmonic proportions in space (the Platonic solids), would hold true for the harmonic proportions of the orbiting planets.
This as a shockingly successful "intuition", which ultimately yielded a genuine breakthrough in humanity's scientific knowledge (elliptical orbital pathways of the planets.)
But according to inimalist here, this is just not scientific at all.
If this were the 17th century, and Kepler were in this thread defending his "harmonic proportions", be absolutely assured inimalist would be condemning him as a "post hoc", "coincidentalist", "crackpot", whose methods were simply unacceptable according to "modern science".
This is why science is never the domain of minds like yours, inimalist…. you are simply incapable of discovering anything new, or even recognizing when it is discovered for you.
The good news is, there is always psychology………...