Very interesting. Is something still a discovery if there is no proof?
Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#12Very interesting. Is something still a discovery if there is no proof?
It's a model. And the model, like these ones, to be scientific, will make predictions which can theoretically be tested.
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#13This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten. People should be allowed to…
I don't see how that follows at all. Academic arguments about the structure of the heavens are irrelevancies except to the people in the argument (and those threatened by it). Sure, absolutely: you don't censor opinions about astronomy just because they seem "probably wrong" or demand blind adherence to the best available theory. You do the science, because sometimes scientists are wrong. But pandemic advice isn't ab…
> , you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was.
Which consensus exactly?
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#14Evidence is something observable in the real world. Proof is something in your head.
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#15Evidence is something observable in the real world. Proof is something in your head.
"Evidence" is used 7 times in the body of the article, "proof" only once. This is a case of the headline not corresponding to the body of the text. The text itself makes some good points about the models of the time and sometimes their lack of supporting evidence. As does throw0101b's timeline in the comment here.
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#16This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten. People should be allowed to…
That implies that best scientific knowledge may be faulty or even wrong. And in terms of scientism, this is heresy, or "science denial". In the era of Rationalism (TM), if something is not done in the best current knowledge of this moment, in the most efficient way, allocating all available resources for it, you will inevitably be accused of literally murdering people. Even if the next moment it turns out that knowledge was wrong and following it actually led to the actual deaths of people. The ones that followed the BASK are absolved, since they were pure of heart, but those who dissented from BASK, even if post-factum they were proven right objectively, are condemned, since they did it Without Evidence, impurely, and that's the capital sin.
I think this is a consequence of mythologizing the scientific process as being purely following empirical evidence and being moved just by gathering evidence and explaining it in the most convincing form, and whatever the current best one is, must be followed as if it were the truth.
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#17This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten. People should be allowed to…
What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications? I guess it's really about people. And if the people in charge have your best interests at heart. With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch". As for "heliocentric / geocentric" - didn't that all become irrelevant once we've learned there's no "ether"? All models are equally valid/invalid. Or perhaps I'…
> What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications?
You may consider that for the argument "current consensus is not always true and should not be enforced as if it were always true" the argument "but what about this one case where it was true" is not a counter-argument.
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#18This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten. People should be allowed to…
I don't see how that follows at all. Academic arguments about the structure of the heavens are irrelevancies except to the people in the argument (and those threatened by it). Sure, absolutely: you don't censor opinions about astronomy just because they seem "probably wrong" or demand blind adherence to the best available theory. You do the science, because sometimes scientists are wrong. But pandemic advice isn't ab…
> you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was.
Was it though? As I am seeing now, some early policies were flat out murderous (such as hosting COVID patients together with healthy people in nursing homes), some were practically useless mortality wise (like lockdowns) and some are very minimally useful or not useful at all (like mask mandates and mass-firing unvaccinated people). Some were flat out fraud (like claims that consensus existed about COVID origins). For some, I understand, the jury is still out (like, how efficient exactly are the vaccines, compared to natural immunity). So I am not sure which part "it was" it is referring too, and pretty sure there were a lot of losing bets made in those years.
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications? I guess it's really about people. And if the people in charge have your best interests at heart. With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch". As for "heliocentric / geocentric" - didn't that all become irrelevant once we've learned there's no "ether"? All models are equally valid/invalid. Or perhaps I'…
The problem with communicable diseases is that "the people in charge" are both people at various levels trying to impose or convince people to act in certain ways, as well as the individuals who are literally walking around infectious, or with disregard to whether or not they and those they interact with are infectious. > With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch". No one speakin…
crap, "populace".
Re: Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler all lacked proof
#20This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten. People should be allowed to…
> force people to behave in line with the best available evidence. I think this… really depends on the behavior. I think, pretty much universally we should never force someone to pretend their beliefs conform to such evidence. But, in certain circumstances, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world. Consider exaggerating this principle to an extreme degree (to de…
> I think this… really depends on the behavior.
> I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world.
And I think... it's... appropriate to... use extreme violence to resist anyone who attempts to force me to conform to anything. Ellipsis.