I think SB’s line of argument isn’t necessarily without merit, but at the same time, Asimov pretty much annihilated it a few decades ago.
Yes. yes there is. It’s a perfectly valid way to interpret the data. It’s much mroe work, which is why we switched to a mroe useful one. But it’s is exactly as mathematical valid as the alternative.
Ah, but now you’re changing the subject. The sun doesn’t “track space” around Earth as I understand it, although I may be misinterpreting a vague statement.
But it can be validly described as orbiting the Earth by any measure. Our gravity pushes it to the side; the fact that the variance is smaller than the sun’s own radius is irrelevant, since there’s no inherent value in the scale of a thing according to gravity. That’s substituting your own judgement - your own opinion. And even if you don’t like it, you must acknowledge that there is no fixed point in space. You may on a whim take Earth as your starting point as much as the sun, or for that matter any arbitrary body. Using the sun is a convenient shorthand, but it remains a convenient fiction.
Ah, but I didn’t say the Heliocentric model was correct. You said it is incorrect, which is a different thing, and my entire point. In fact, the entire issue I’ve been trying to get across is the same thing that Aristotle says: we know better than they did. It doesn’t mean we know everything. We only get closer to the facts, but never entirely hold the facts themselves. Those who believed the sun went around the earth had a sliver of the truth, and we think we have a bigger chunk today. But in pretending they were wrong and we are right, we’re not using good scientific thinking; we’re just substituting one error for another.
I had thought I made this clear every time. Either I’m more inscrutable or ya’ll are desperately scrambling not to admit you said something, which, down at the bottom, is really damn silly.
(Sorry, I wished to edit and took slightly too long.)
Yes. yes there is. It’s a perfectly valid way to interpret the data. It’s much mroe work, which is why we switched to a mroe useful one. But it’s is exactly as mathematical valid as the alternative.
Ah, but now you’re changing the subject. The sun doesn’t “track space” around Earth as I understand it, although I may be misinterpreting a vague statement.
But it can be validly described as orbiting the Earth by any measure. Our gravity pushes it to the side; the fact that the variance is smaller than the sun’s own radius is irrelevant, since there’s no inherent value in the scale of a thing according to gravity. That’s substituting your own judgement - your own opinion. And even if you don’t like it, you must acknowledge that there is no fixed point in space. You may on a whim take Earth as your starting point as much as the sun, or for that matter any arbitrary body. Using the sun is a convenient shorthand, but it remains a convenient fiction.
Ah, but I didn’t say the Heliocentric model was correct. You said it is incorrect, which is a different thing, and my entire point.
In fact, the entire issue I’ve been trying to get across is the same thing that countless scientists say: we know better than they did, but that is not everything. Frankly, the level of scientific ignorance I’ve seen here from the supposed defenders of science appals me. You might want to try understanding what the Theory of Universal Gravitation says before you try to defend it.
We only get closer to the facts, but never entirely hold the facts themselves. Those who believed the sun went around the earth had a sliver of the truth, and we think we have a bigger chunk today. But in pretending they were wrong and we are right, we’re not using good scientific thinking; we’re just substituting one error for another. In fact, it’s worse. Their solution fit all the facts, and was a reasonable deduction. Your solution as near as I can tell is to only admt those facts you learned as a child to try and wish away the new facts. Just as in Rhetoric, you must accomodate yourself to the reality you see, whether that’s a scientific theory or a person. You don’t get to pick someplace you like to simply stop.
I had thought I made this clear every time. Perhaps I’m more inscrutable than I realize, although some clearly understood what I was saying. Thus, I must apologize Zeriel, because I could ahve used that same letter as an argument on my side had I known of it.
I think we’re misunderstanding your argument, because you are coming across as saying “because our conceptions of the universe are not perfectly in line with the facts, there hasn’t been any advancement worth noting.”
Case in point, bolding mine.
Asimov would profoundly disagree with your bolded comment, I think–it is FAR closer to correct to say “the earth revolves around the sun” than it is to say “the sun revolves around the earth”. Reason being, the barycenter of the Sun-Earth system is a miniscule distance from the center of the Sun, compared to its distance from the center of the earth.
To your larger point, which appears to be “we choose the interpretation of the facts that best suits our needs at the time”, that interpretation has to still be accurate to the point it’s useful. Again with your analogy, there are plenty of circumstances where the concept “The earth revolves around the sun” is as usefully correct as “The sun and earth revolve around a common barycenter that is within the sun’s diameter”, whereas there are very few contexts where anything correct can be said using the concept “the sun revolves around the earth”.
My view is that the human animal is not wired for dispassionate logic and that while it can be done, it requires a good deal of effort to do so. Complicating the matter is that even when we do make the effort to be dispassionately objective, many topics ripe for commentary require a specialized degree of study, if the information is even available at the time.
A lot of Mooney’s Point of Inquiry podcast episodes (below) pursue the topic of “why we believe what we believe” and I find them terrifically interesting. Disclaimer: It’s been a while since I’ve listened to some of these episodes — some links will no doubt be more directly salient to the subject at hand than others, but they help emphasize Mooney’s exploration of the subject.
[ul]
[li]The Menace of Denialism - Michael Specter[/li][li]Glenn Beck’s War on Reason - Alexander Zaitchik[/li][li]Why Facts Fail - Brendan Nyhan[/li][li]The American Culture War of Fact - Dan Kahan[/li][li]Among the Truthers - Jonathan Kay[/li][li]The Believing Brain - Michael Shermer[/li][li]Did Reason Evolve For Arguing? - Hugo Mercier[/li][/ul]
Moreover, while a far cry from an academic paper, this entertaining Cracked article 5 Logical Fallacies That Make You Wrong More Than You Think does a respectable Reader’s Digest treatment on the phenomena too.
Some excellent points.
The Straight Dope, {peace be upon him/her} helped teach me that understanding someone else is as important as expressing yourself in communication.
I’ve learned a lot more by having discussions with people who didn’t agree with me and were able to articulate their views and then back them up. It’s also important to understand the limits of our knowledge and realize we still have things to learn, to recognize our own bias and factor it in when discerning the “truth”
I enjoyed the article in it’s recognition of how inseparable emotion and intellect are. I realized some time ago that people’s emotional investment in certain beliefs is indeed a barrier to growth and understanding and cannot be ignored if we want to progress.
Perhaps I am not understanding the argument, but everyone knows two objects orbit around a common center of mass right? It’s the only accurate statement.
Saying the Earth orbits the Sun and leaving it at that is no different than the ancients saying the Sun orbited the Earth. Both are making models based on limited information. Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous conclusions.
It doesn’t take many more words to describe the far more accurate observation than saying the incorrect thing, that the Earth orbits the Sun. The recognition of this accuracy allows the average person to readily understand how we detect extrasolar planets, by far the coolest observations in modern cosmology.
Holding on to the deficient understanding is the means by which the average person becomes less and less informed and unable to handle the changing world around them.
Thanks for posting the article. It’s a subject I find quite interesting. The connection, or disconnection, between intellect and emotion. I tend to think of myself as a very reasonable and logical person, but I’ve come t recognize my own bias is several areas.
remember the biblical phrase “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free” ?
I think truth does have freeing power, but the process of knowing it and accepting it is long and not easy. The good news is , IMO , is that we go forward based on what we perceive to be truth right now, as honest as we can be with ourselves and others, and in the process, we will be exposed to the truth and have the opportunity to adjust our perception of what is true. Not just new data, but an awareness of our own emotional make up and how that affects our perception.
If only we could perceive and comprehend it.
If I owe you $1000, would you rather I pay you $999.90 or $99.99? Who cares about the degree of wrong? Both are erroneous.
Doesn’t having the sun orbit the earth have the other planets stopping and backing up?
I think there’s something you’ve all overlooked with the sun orbiting thing.
There is no absolute space. So it’s not like the sun, the galaxy or anything else is a stationary point. You have to pick a frame of reference.
Choosing the earth as a frame of reference, the sun goes around the earth. Simples.
I’m not sure what the point of this tangent though…
Hell, look at the Pit Thread on Climategate, where almost all the major points have been resolved, yet a vocal minority continues to insist that they haven’t.
Well, thats just a theory, its not falsifiable, and its only your opinion, man.
Yeah, I just picked a thread I had opened. I bypass many threads here due to the closed minds.
Yeah, the retrograde motion thing.
As an aside, we do know that we are rotating around the Sun and not the other way around. There was the aberration of light thing from the 18th century. I think there’s also a relativity method too.
It was not you of course, but what is really sad is that even that the demands of falsification from deniers are not new regarding the climate change issue; what is really, really sad is that the attacks are really just reheated baloney.
As Gavin Smith from NASA said back in 2006, using that fetishism of Popperian falsification on climate science is using the wrong tool for the task.
Over here I do think that we all have biases, but they are more likely to be a hindrance when one is not **working **on the matter at hand. As we can not be all experts on every matter, the fallback position IMHO is that we should look at what the experts are telling us, and in this era of the internet there is plenty of places out there to get in contact with the best sources on an issue. There is one important warning: When possible, look at the original sources or experts on the issue, and always verify if your sources of information are omitting important information. After some time you will then be able, if not to get the truth, at least get the most grounded in reality information.
One more point, a big part of what I do is to unceremoniously dump any source of information or reporter that I notice plays loose with the facts constantly, yes even if they are coming from the left, as I reported in the past also in this very message board. It really does wonders for the quest for the truth.
Does becoming color blind change the wave length emitted from all objects in the universe?
I really have no other response if this is a point of contention for you.
No, I would certainly never say that. But there’s advancement in the realm of human knowledge, and then there’s advance of individual intellect. One problem is that too many believe the former implies the latter, and then follow-up by resting on their laurels and saying things which are patent nonsense.
Mathematically (which is the correct version as far as we know), that’s a moot point. What I am saying is that you’re interpreting (and simplifyin) the facts in a way which is convenient to helping you understand the situation. There’s nothing wrong in that. But it’s also not the same as actually understanding the situation.
I would say that we choose an interpretation we can comprehend at the time, and that we all hold deep-seated values which are above any fact - and should be above any fact. And I would say that if you want to argue with someone, you must understand their facts on their level, and consider strongly that you might be lacking something.
People here are trying to find some way to stamp on the Geocentric theory, which is irrelevant, because as is often the case, the theory isn’t wrong, just less useful for most purposes. Thus, if you want to teach someone who holds that theory, you have to approach them with that in mind.
You might, for example, look at how it is a valid but very complicated model, and then look at a heliocentric model, and then a galacto-centric model, and then finally observe the universe as a whole.
Take it one step further. If you want to talk to Jenny McCarthy (God help you) you would be very unwise to attack her or say she’s wrong, even if she is. The message probably isn’t the problem: it’s the medium. You come out and attack anyone’s belief, and they clam up, because implicitly you’re attacking them. That’s why a wise rhetor doesn’t do that, but rather argues around the belief.
Yes it is wrong. And to say otherwise devalues the concept of fact and fiction to the point of worthlessness.