| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, science eventually (a hundred years later) totally discredited eugenics so you excuse it
First off, a lot of eugenics is an ought question. As already discussed, science doesn't really do ought questions. Even if science came back and said "stop all of x group from breeding and IQ's will increase 5 points" you still have to decide if you ought to do that.
Secondly, Darwin pointed out some of the problems with eugenics as soon as his cousin proposed it: namely that eugenics proponents don't have a control group for a lot of what they're saying because education and environment play a large role and weren't being accounted for.
Thirdly, the later uses for eugenics to support racism go completely against the point of genetic improvement. If you were trying to improve the gene pool you would toss a black genius into the mix as fast as you would a white one... faster even, since you're guaranteeing a lower amount of inbreeding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, science eventually (a hundred years later) totally discredited eugenics so you excuse itFirst off, a lot of eugenics is an ought question. As already discussed, science doesn't really do ought questions. Even if science came back and said "stop all of x group from breeding and IQ's will increase 5 points" you still have to decide if you ought to do that.
Secondly, Darwin pointed out some of the problems with eugenics as soon as his cousin proposed it: namely that eugenics proponents don't have a control group for a lot of what they're saying because education and environment play a large role and weren't being accounted for.
Thirdly, the later uses for eugenics to support racism go completely against the point of genetic improvement. If you were trying to improve the gene pool you would toss a black genius into the mix as fast as you would a white one... faster even, since you're guaranteeing a lower amount of inbreeding.
1. forgot to mention. thank you.
2. forgot to mention. thank you.3. forgot to mention. thank you, and might I add "woot, hybrid vigor.'
|
Instead, look at the debate and struggle. Look at the end result
I HAVE. What i see is that the further we stick religion back into the closet along all the other mythologies the better off we get. We let the church run society and it became known as the dark ages.
It really bugs me when people try to blame everything on the church. The church stepped in when the western world was going to all heck because of it's politics, backstabbing, and greed. Religion had a small part of it, but it was primarily secular politics and schemeing that braught about "the dark ages", and it was the church, with a great deal of "uneducated" (by our standards) religious (and many not at all faithful) individuals that held what little they had together.
The church was practically the only orginization that kept records, retained much knowledge of the world being lost rapidly, and with any sort of organized sense of order past their city, much less state or country.
|
|
Yes, some people (again, damn fools) argue issues of morality on the basis of their religion. Hey, half the population is of below average intelligence. But that's not the same as saying that the religion claims infallibility.
Just curious, what other basis are there, and what other basis are proper for debating issues of morality? (I'm asking your opinion honestly, not sarcastically).
|
|
Nooo.... the score after one round stands at...
Science: less than one hundred years to discredit, and almost entirely eliminate a harmful idea it is only loosely associated with the creation off.
Religion: all of human history, to not eliminate and discredit a harmful idea, it is fundimentally responsible for creating.
Round 2:
Phranology: Mildly damaging at best, left behind by science within about 100 year, because it was demonstrably not true.
Execution of woman for adultery on religious grounds: Deeply harmful over the short, medium and long term. Has not been solved by religion, still practiced in numerous theocracies, and advocated by would be theocrats in many countries, including the US. Religion has had all of human history and hasn't gotten rid of this junk idea.
Shall we move onto round 3? Do you have a 'bad result of science' in mind?
I pretty much disagree with everything you said here.
How did science discredit eugenics? Moved away from or abandonned is not the same thing at all, and by no means has it been completely stopped even today. There is no religion that has existed for "all of human history", even if measuered by the standards of new earth. Religions are individual systems of belief, and had nothing or little to do with most of the great evils that people attribute to (or outright blame on) it. Take the religion of the time away, and people are still evil, greedy, and want ot control others. Religon, at most, is a convenient excuss for people to hide behind when they do their evil. Execution for adultry is not deeply harmful, that's an opinion. In most cultures in the world, there are more severe punishments for crimes that we westerns believe is wrong and evil because of our own political stance, but that doesn't make us best. Even statistically, they have less crime, much less brutal crimes, and the population is much more hesitant to do these harmful things. Adultry (which equally pertains to males in most religious equally, so not a womans lib issue at all other than our western views of sexuality in the sexes), both from a religious and from a purely humanistic and social perspective IS harmful, short, medium, and long term, however (it is probably the number one reason for breaking up families, causes all sorts of financial issues, wastes so much time in our court system that we can't use for actual issues, is highly depressing all around, including to the individuals that had no part in it, is a major direct cause for suicide and non-suicidal deaths, and also a major cause of drug use and alcoholism). Much more so the acceptance of it and the western idea of freedom meaning not having consequences, the worst byproduct of our western secular morality.
Don't think I am excusing religions. Religion and people that follow a religions absolutely have done some pretty bad stuff, both thru and in the name of their religions. But science, atheism, and secular parties have done so as well, and I would venture that each one of those individually is has at least as much evil, if not more so, than religions, in either quality or quantity. It is just so much easier to blame religion. It's an easy out.
|
|
To give an example, I'm a utilitarian. But, the question of what provides the most utility is a big question - often times to big for one person to figure out on their own. Religion provides a place where these kinds of problems solved by others can be passed down through the generations (take, for example, Steward's work on the sacred cow of India), not to be followed blindly, but to add insight and perspective. To argue that something is wrong because my religion tells me so is f'ed up. To argue that something is wrong because of X, Y, and Z which I've studied and analyzed - including lessons learned, perspecttives gained, and insights received as passed down (in the form of morality tales, apologetics, and exegesis) - is right action.Yes, some people (again, damn fools) argue issues of morality on the basis of their religion. Hey, half the population is of below average intelligence. But that's not the same as saying that the religion claims infallibility.Just curious, what other basis are there, and what other basis are proper for debating issues of morality? (I'm asking your opinion honestly, not sarcastically).
That sounds ok in theory, but I guess my point is, who decides?
Science is a terrible judge of character, by itself. Politics, likewise. Logic is purely in the eye of the beholder, without some sort of unifying "authority", which is universally, in human hands, imperfect.
Again, yes religion can make mistakes. Nothing man-made is infallible. But, if you look at religion over the long term, you see an expansion of human rights. The most influential people working to end things like Muslims killing their daughters because they were raped is other Muslims.
now take religion completely out of the picture and what do you get?
The lack of a large institution whose primary purpose is to debate these issues to generate change.
Absolutely not. Religions do not organize to establish change: or at least our monotheistic ones do not. They organize to establish orthodoxy, to keep things the same. Christianity had the nicene creeds, the catholic, and eastern orthodox churches. Later the protestants would have the same rigid adherence to the new doctine.
Judaism organized to decide what books should be in the old testament, and to decide what it meant with the talmud
Islam organized to catalog and standardize the Qur'an and the hadeeth.
The lack of a common body of knowledge (morality tales, lessons learned, etc.) within that institution with which to build rapport with which Muslims who don't stone their daughters can influence those who do.
You're consistently putting the cart in front of the horse here and assuming that people are far, far more rational than they are as well as giving religion a white wash.
|
Yes, some people (again, damn fools) argue issues of morality on the basis of their religion. Hey, half the population is of below average intelligence. But that's not the same as saying that the religion claims infallibility.
Just curious, what other basis are there, and what other basis are proper for debating issues of morality? (I'm asking your opinion honestly, not sarcastically).
To give an example, I'm a utilitarian. But, the question of what provides the most utility is a big question - often times to big for one person to figure out on their own. Religion provides a place where these kinds of problems solved by others can be passed down through the generations (take, for example, Steward's work on the sacred cow of India), not to be followed blindly, but to add insight and perspective. To argue that something is wrong because my religion tells me so is f'ed up. To argue that something is wrong because of X, Y, and Z which I've studied and analyzed - including lessons learned, perspecttives gained, and insights received as passed down (in the form of morality tales, apologetics, and exegesis) - is right action.
That sounds ok in theory, but I guess my point is, who decides?Science is a terrible judge of character, by itself. Politics, likewise. Logic is purely in the eye of the beholder, without some sort of unifying "authority", which is universally, in human hands, imperfect.
Science is very close (neurobiology) to enhancing our ability to judge character. And strong AI-managed systems arguably might make 'science' quite the judge of character.
As to the hint at multiculturalism and multicultural tolerance, and now's when I have to be careful and not devolve to my own brand of fundamentalism (I am very patently anti-multicultural in terms of tolerance for varying moral philosophies)--Moral correctness is universal and transcends culture. Human value is not determined by gender, age, genetic affiliation, nationality, tribe, or philosophy; rather human value is determined by the very condition of being human, and from this virtually all other moral decisions may be correctly made ( now that's a fun argument).
As to logic, the system is absolutely impartial. Logic is not interpretive (though you might make interpolations, themselves systematic), it is very much a to b to c, p to np, and so on. Logic, however absolutely requires human interaction, because it can (very logically, ha-ha) allow for 100% immoral action.
I pretty much disagree with everything you said here.
As is your right.
How did science discredit eugenics? Moved away from or abandoned is not the same thing at all, and by no means has it been completely stopped even today.
From almost eugenics inception, evolutionary biologists, including Charles Darwin himself have been arguing that eugenics was unscientific. The principle of Eugenics, as set out by Sir Francis Galton , are actually contrary to evolution by natural selection, evolution is not 'getting better' it is becoming better adapted to the environment in which you find yourself. Within evolution by natural selection there is no such thing as "reversion towards mediocrity”. Ethology and psychology, demonstrated that heritability of behavioural traits was far from the only game in town, with both environmental conditions and learn behaviours playing a considerable part, in determining outcome. Advancement in our understanding of genetics tore out the underpinnings of eugenics, with work like that of Thomas Hunt Morgan on every ones favourite Model organism in genetics, Drosophila melanogaster.
. Yes Science, indisuptably took the virolent form of eugenics and beat it like a red headed stepchild, in the market place of ideas. That doesn't mean that the over all question of what we should do with out ability to intervene in our own genetics has gone away, bio-ethics is faced with challanged these days that make eugenics look like a messy baby of an idea, but the forms of eugenics that influenced Nazi policy and ideology is dead in the free market place of ideas.There is no religion that has existed for "all of human history", even if measured by the standards of new earth.
I did not state 'a religion' but rather 'religion'. Religion as a whole, has not rid the world of either witch hunts, or the execution of individuals who do not conform to the sexual mores of their society/religion. Religion as a whole has had several million years to solve these two moral no brainers, and utterly failed.
Religions are individual systems of belief, and had nothing or little to do with most of the great evils that people attribute to (or outright blame on) it.
Oh boy, for real? Your going to claim that the elevated suicide rate amongst LGBT teenagers has nothing to do with the social normalisation of homophobia by religion. That being brought up in an environment where they are taught from childhood that they are evil and will be punished forever, because of a aspect of their identity that they do not control, does not cause suffering to children and young adults? That the fact that in salt lake city, 40% of all homeless young people is LGBT.
Take the religion of the time away, and people are still evil, greedy, and want to control others.
Yeah, and? That doesn't for a second mean that religion cannot also be a source of suffering and 'evil'. Pretty sure we just covered some of the ways in which it can.
Religon, at most, is a convenient excuss for people to hide behind when they do their evil.
Mmm... I'd suggest you go and read up on in group/ out group signifiers, and their role in tribalism and tribal violence. Yes, Religion can make good men do evil things, better than almost any other social structure and yes it is hardier thanks to not being reality based, but it also causes its fair share of additional violence because it creates out group.
Execution for adultry is not deeply harmful, that's an opinion.
Yes it is to the individuals, they suffer, they are executed. That is harm.
In most cultures in the world, there are more severe punishments for crimes that we westerns believe is wrong and evil because of our own political stance, but that doesn't make us best.
Even statistically, they have less crime, much less brutal crimes, and the population is much more hesitant to do these harmful things.
okay, first off, can you back that claim with citation?
Secondly, the research is far from in agreement with you as the ACLU's website is more that happy to point out far more eloquently than I can manage currently.
The vast preponderance of the evidence shows that the death penalty is no more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder and that it may even be an incitement to criminal violence. Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death-penalty states. Use of the death penalty in a given state may actually increase the subsequent rate of criminal homicide. Why? Perhaps because "a return to the exercise of the death penalty weakens socially based inhibitions against the use of lethal force to settle disputes…. "
In adjacent states – one with the death penalty and the other without it – the state that practices the death penalty does not always show a consistently lower rate of criminal homicide. For example, between l990 and l994, the homicide rates in Wisconsin and Iowa (non-death-penalty states) were half the rates of their neighbour, Illinois – which restored the death penalty in l973, and by 1994 had sentenced 223 persons to death and carried out two executions. Between 2000-2009, the murder rate in states with capital punishment was 35-46% higher than states without the death penalty.
Thirdly, your argument is difficult to sustain, as it completely ignores that such a reduction in 'questionable social ills' in such societies comes at the expense of increased suffering, the deprivation of liberty and elevated levels of fear in the population.
Adultry (which equally pertains to males in most religious equally, so not a womans lib issue at all other than our western views of sexuality in the sexes), both from a religious and from a purely humanistic and social perspective IS harmful, short, medium, and long term, however (it is probably the number one reason for breaking up families, causes all sorts of financial issues, wastes so much time in our court system that we can't use for actual issues, is highly depressing all around, including to the individuals that had no part in it, is a major direct cause for suicide and non-suicidal deaths, and also a major cause of drug use and alcoholism).
Religious definitions of adultery can be so broad as to include individuals in loving, stable but non-marital relationships, homosexuals in stable relationships, and even rape victims. Take for instance the case of Aisho Ibrahim Dhuhulow, Somalian rape victim, stoned to death for adultery in 2008 under religious law. For that matter the 23 year old gang rape victim in Jeddah, Saudi Arabian , who received a years prison sentence and 100 lashes for adultery in 2009, the 19 year old girl who in 2007 was gang raped, and received six months imprisonment, and 200 lashes. How about “Camille”, a a Filipino migrant worker, sentenced to to six months for having been raped by a co-worker(the child she was carrying as a result of the rape miscarried while she was imprisoned.) Please realise that I am not stopping listing here for any shortage of examples of egregious harm that is done to rape victims, and other woman in the islamic world, but simply because I can only manage to read so many article about the horrors that these woman are put through, because a group of bigoted religious believers cannot see the evil inherent in their bronze age myth books.
Much more so the acceptance of it and the western idea of freedom meaning not having consequences, the worst by-product of our western secular morality.
And there are plenty enough consequence for our decisions, good or bad, and those occasions when our choice is denied us, thank you very much, without corporal or capital punishment for individuals choosing to have sex, or individuals being raped.
Don't think I am excusing religions. Religion and people that follow a religions absolutely have done some pretty bad stuff, both thru and in the name of their religions. Yes, yes they have.
But science,
Example please?
atheism,
Please, what exactly is the logical pathway that leads someone from 'I do not believe in magic father figures in the sky' to an evil act. Can you provide a significant example of a group of people who where driven by their atheism(as opposed to some ideology they possessed) to commit an atrocity?
and secular parties have done so as well, and I would venture that each one of those individually is has at least as much evil, if not more so, than religions, in either quality or quantity. It is just so much easier to blame religion. It's an easy out.
You mean like the soviat union under starlin ? I'll let hitch take this one, I think. .
|
|
Execution for adultry is not deeply harmful, that's an opinion.
It's pretty damn harmful to the woman involved. And it is a woman. Regardless of what the text of the religion says, it's the women who pay the price. I'm sure there are exceptions, but they are few.
"Honor" killings, whether legal or extra-legal are about controlling women.
Adultery is not the reason there is more divorce in Western Culture. There is more divorce because it is more possible for women to support themselves. Regardless of adultery, if a woman is dependent on her husband, as was the case until very recently, then it's much harder to leave. Maybe we should go back? Of course it'll mean even more women will be stuck with abusive a@%+*!&s, but that's a small price to pay for a lower divorce rate, right?
And no, I don't really blame religion for this. It's definitely a cultural thing that takes generations to change. Religion does make it harder to change though.
No, it hasn't. Women (and much less so men) now have the option of being supported while not being bound, like I said freedom without responsibility. In western culture, anyways, most domestic issues are initiated from female partners, and this is even more true in lesbian partnerships, while the male gets in trouble for defensive (or no) actions.
Honor killings go both ways, though it is typically not made as aware of with males as it is with females. Females as defenseless victims and males as brute aggressors is much more newsworthy, regardless of country, and the brutality that these political/religious extremist do on males just doesn’t have the same emotional bang.They have done tests where there is a mock fight (including the appearance of physical violence) between a male and a female to see how people respond, (including the appearance of sexual abuse on the male like getting hit, kicked, kneed in the genitals, having them stepped on), and almost universally, people walk right by the male being victimized, laugh, or even show expressions of "you go girl, he probably deserved it" to the female when the male is not able to see, regardless of the fact that they had just walked upon the ordeal. In these mock scenarios, once the male being victimized was even arrested for domestic violence when he was the victim the entire time, and it was caught on tape that the police officers had monitored the entire thing for a few moments before acting.
Additionally, records from various battered woman’s shelters indicate that the majority of women that do go there both initiated the fights (or where equal partners in a equally abusive relationship), knowing that they would be accepted as the victim automatically, had a free ticket out of jail, (literally and figuratively), where the violent aggressors, and actively took the kids purely out of spite and to be seen even more so as the defenseless victim trying to protect her kids, (often further victimizing the kids), because in a her word vs his word, (even with proof sometimes), her word almost always wins in court.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Because "reason" and "logic" as they've been used in this thread refers to consistent, axiomatic truth machines. Godel has shown that any such truth machine will have truths it cannot discover. That makes that machine imperfect.By "logic", the term has been used in this thread to mean "reason" (in the broadest sense of the word) and, by that definition, logic is imperfect (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that).Erm, how so?
Godel proved that axiomatic mathematical systems cannot be both complete and consistent.
Trying to apply Godel to, well, anything else is about as absurd as quoting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to try to get out of a speeding ticket.
You write that the Council of Nice, the Protestant Reformation, and Judaism during the creation of the Talmud resisted change. But, in truth, what all these incidents really were are examples of change.
No, they aren't. The Councils took what was already the majority belief , set it in stone, and made it the only acceptable belief. The same with the Talmud , the Qur'an and the hadeeths.
This is in no way, shape, or form change or growth. The evidence does not match your assertions.
And this change is continuing even today (churches accepting evolution and homosexuals being recent examples).
And did churches drag society into accepting that or has society dragged the churches along? Are the churches ahead or behind on this one? The answer to that is pretty clear. Churches stay in the past until society drags them along. They're not doing anything to encourage progress they're holding us back.
Religion has been an opposing force against evolution and uniformitarianism from day 1.
And if anything I said before was an insult (as you claimed it was) claiming that I'm whitewashing religion certainly is. If one of us is painting religion monochromatically, given that I've acknowledged religion's mistakes, it isn't me.
What i want is inside my head. What you're doing is plain to see.
I don't think you have acknowledged religions mistakes. I haven't seen any good they could possibly be responsible for that would make up for the inquisition, setting themselves up as the sole authority of what was fit to print, running half of italy like north korea and outlawing railroads of all things, salem witch trials, or the cathar crusades, much less their handling of the child molestation issue to the point that it meets the standards for aiding and abetting.
Religion has gotten better in the west because we don't give it the power to hurt anyone anymore. The inquisition was a brutal 500 year lesson in that.
Religion is mostly grey with a few white spots and a lot of black blobs.
The church stepped in when the western world was going to all heck because of it's politics, backstabbing, and greed.
And proceeded to out politic out greed and outbackstab the rest of Europe until it was the dominant force.
Religion had a small part of it, but it was primarily secular politics and schemeing that braught about "the dark ages", and it was the church, with a great deal of "uneducated" (by our standards) religious (and many not at all faithful) individuals that held what little they had together.
It was the Muslims who held onto all of the knowledge or imported it in from India where it was being generated that got Europe thinking again.
The church re burned the library of alexandria, killed female mathematicians, banned books, and set itself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth on pain of death. Copernicus was afraid to publish his scientific theories and Galileo proved that his fear was founded. You cannot advance without free inquiry and even asking the wrong questions got you attention from the inquisition.
I'm no mathematician, but I do know that it's fairly trivial to map non-mathematic propositions and rules to mathematics.
Its simply not possible.
Take something like the broken window hypothesis for example: that is if you leave a broken window people are more likely to break others or break into the house. If you have a street full of liter people are more likely to add more litter than if the streets are clean.
It might be right. It might not. But since you're dealing with the irrational behavior of humans its not a logic or mathematical problem: math can't help you, you need some experiments.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I'm no mathematician, but I do know that it's fairly trivial to map non-mathematic propositions and rules to mathematics.Because "reason" and "logic" as they've been used in this thread refers to consistent, axiomatic truth machines. Godel has shown that any such truth machine will have truths it cannot discover. That makes that machine imperfect.By "logic", the term has been used in this thread to mean "reason" (in the broadest sense of the word) and, by that definition, logic is imperfect (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that).Erm, how so?Godel proved that axiomatic mathematical systems cannot be both complete and consistent.
Trying to apply Godel to, well, anything else is about as absurd as quoting the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to try to get out of a speeding ticket.
But you're going the other way! :) You're applying the propositions and rules of mathematics to non-mathematical ideas.
One does not use Trigonometry to explain the relationship dynamics of a love triangle.
Assuming that they did what you claim they did (take something that wasn't in stone and change it to be in stone), that certainly is change.
Disingenuous pedantic sophistry. Ossification is progress? Malarky. Slavery is freedom!
But, in fact, that's not what actually happened. What happened is that each of these religions said, "these are the texts to read to understand our faith" and then added over a thousand more years of texts with a "study these texts to understand our faith, too".
Aquinas's codification of catholic belief is what made the inquisition possible. Before that the church had so much variety in it that charging someone for heresies other than Arianism was virtually impossible because the heretics were getting off on the grounds that their ideas weren't technically anti catholic because no one had a particularly clear concept of what catholic was. Punishing unorthodoxy requires that you clearly establish orthodoxy first. That's what most of religious writings are.
Every addition to a monotheistic religions library is either an attempt to go backwards towards the source, not forwards, or a desperate attempt to duct tape and obfuscate ancient morality so that its compatable with todays society. In NEITHER case is religion leading.
Study your history and you'll find that the church pushed society on moral issues.
Ad hom. Your statement effectively translates into "you don't agree with me because you're ignorant"
You have NO cause or excuse to tell me to study more when you're unable to counter the examples I'm giving you. I have studied my history and that's why i can back my point with examples rather than backhanded insults and conniving chicanery.
Why don't you SHOW the church pushing more than its pulling? One horse pulling east and one cart pulling west is not moving the wagon west.
Let's make this real simple for you. How many times do I have to say that religion has made mistakes before you acknowledge that I'm acknowledging religion's mistakes?
I'd like you to list the good and bad that's come of religion and then tell me its merely an arbiter for the discussion.
Careful, you're starting to sound like one of those witch burning religious types you hate soo much.
You know what? you're not supposed to tolerate everything. You're not supposed to tolerate people killing innocent people, you're not supposed to tolerate people punting babies, you're not supposed to tolerate people kicking puppies.
Some people deserve a crowbar to the head. If i can't give them that i'll be damned if I'm going to spend a second feeling bad because I call them out on something they're not supposed to be doing.
|
|
I'm no mathematician, but I do know that it's fairly trivial to map non-mathematic propositions and rules to mathematics.Its simply not possible.
Take something like the broken window hypothesis for example: that is if you leave a broken window people are more likely to break others or break into the house. If you have a street full of liter people are more likely to add more litter than if the streets are clean.
It might be right. It might not. But since you're dealing with the irrational behavior of humans its not a logic or mathematical problem: math can't help you, you need some experiments.
nitpick:
Well, I could formulate a model that would 'show' anything you want to see (like the timed-liklihood of increasing broken windows in a radial pattern epic entered at the first broken window
You would need data, LOTS of data, to be able to create that model. And you cannot arrive at that model by inference, reason, or logic alone.
So how many Hail Marys do I have to say if i just point, laugh and call this thread off the rails?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Reread the second post I made regarding Godel's theory in this thread.
Do you mean this one?
Because "reason" and "logic" as they've been used in this thread refers to consistent, axiomatic truth machines. Godel has shown that any such truth machine will have truths it cannot discover. That makes that machine imperfect.
....Ok, I read it!...do I win a prize? :)
Or did you actually have a point? Wouldn't it be easier to just make your point, rather than give me a snooty redirect to your previous statement?
|
|
Well, I could formulate a model that would 'show' anything you want to see (like the timed-liklihood of increasing broken windows in a radial pattern epic entered at the first broken windowYou would need data, LOTS of data, to be able to create that model. And you cannot arrive at that model by inference, reason, or logic alone.
Conceded. And it takes a bit of artificial balancing (and would remain one of those metaphysical mathematical games that can't be proved because they can't readily and repeatedly be observed--like bubble universe math). What would yellowdingo say? "String theory invalidates your position!"
Ha! This thread is super-fun!
|
|
It's actually not true that the sun is the center of the solar system. Any point, including Earth, can be considered the center. It's just that Western math works out better if the Sun is the center. Polynesians put the map user at the center and became some of the best sailors to ever live.
You're talking about redshift and special rotations?
Oh great Odin's beard, now western MATH and astronomy are culturally oppressive subjective cultural institutions...
Look, the earth goes around the sun. If you want to get pedantic and technical the earth and sun rotate around a central point that's determined by their masses and the distance between them which, because the sun is so much more massive than the earth, is about a smidgen away from the center of the sun.
The sun is objectively in the center of the solar system because everything is going around it. If you're navigating it doesn't make any difference. If you're trying to explain the spiral Watusi pattern that some planets are dancing too across the sky it matters a great deal.
The church stepped in when the western world was going to all heck because of it's politics, backstabbing, and greed.And proceeded to out politic out greed and outbackstab the rest of Europe until it was the dominant force.
Religion had a small part of it, but it was primarily secular politics and schemeing that braught about "the dark ages", and it was the church, with a great deal of "uneducated" (by our standards) religious (and many not at all faithful) individuals that held what little they had together.It was the Muslims who held onto all of the knowledge or imported it in from India where it was being generated that got Europe thinking again.
The church re burned the library of alexandria, killed female mathematicians, banned books, and set itself up as the ultimate arbiter of truth on pain of death. Copernicus was afraid to publish his scientific theories and Galileo proved that his fear was founded. You cannot advance without free inquiry and even asking the wrong questions got you attention from the inquisition.
Yes, the knowledge filtered back from the Muslims and India (Hindus), both of which are religions.
It's actually not true that the sun is the center of the solar system. Any point, including Earth, can be considered the center. It's just that Western math works out better if the Sun is the center. Polynesians put the map user at the center and became some of the best sailors to ever live.
No, the central point of the solar system isn't a matter of 'opinion'. The solar system can have only one central point, that can in principle be measured. It matters not that Polynesians put themselves at the centre of Maps, they are wrong, if they try to claim that they where the centre of the physical universe. While by comparison, Copernicus and Galileo, where broadly factually correct in their observation.
|
|
I'm talking about the fact that anything in space can be treated as the still point around which everything else moves. The reference point isn't objectively determined, it's subjectively determined and can be pretty much anything you want it to be. The only reason it was determined to be the sun in Western science is because Western math is easier that way. But that's only a math trick and is easier only for a subset of stellar dynamics problems.You're talking about redshift and special rotations?
It's actually not true that the sun is the center of the solar system. Any point, including Earth, can be considered the center. It's just that Western math works out better if the Sun is the center. Polynesians put the map user at the center and became some of the best sailors to ever live.
so... observational, geometric, gravitational and cosmic centers. I was going to argue this one, but--and no offense, but I'm tired and it's evening here--I have a feeling you would counter anything I'd say: observational centers are relative to the observer, geometric are 'precise' (and it would be unfair to argue the earth is a geometric center of anything using the observational argument ), gravitational are mass-dependent, and cosmic only works in terms of blind-movement in micro-gravity relative to observer movement (since there is no definable center to infinity).
Any point in non-referenced space can be considered a (objectively by itself) center, but the cosmos is largely considered a referenced area. I'd say there is really no basis to any argument that denies the sun to be the gravitational center of our solar system.
Any why are we arguing about this one any way? To what end?