Sigh - oldbloke's mutterings
|Date:||September 24th, 2010 08:41 am (UTC)|| |
That is the funniest thing I've seen all day. Admittedly the day isn't that old, but I've been reading Failblog this morning and this beats that hands down.
This sort of thing does get me thinking - how does the brain get into this position?
I will start by saying that ultimately I am taking it on faith that this man is very wrong - but when I consider it I accept that I do not know enough to first hand prove this man wrong. I mean that in the sense that if somebody told me paris was made of cheese I could not rely on people telling me about Paris i could just go there. Where as I would not know how to do that for this fact I Know. Please do not think i doubt it fir a second but really I just accept the words of others.
But this writer has clearly looked into it - a lot. So what is going wrong internally for them to reach such a wrong conclusion about something which is a physical on going fact - much the same as Paris is not made of cheese,
|Date:||September 24th, 2010 09:26 am (UTC)|| |
It's a surprisingly simple answer; blind faith. That's it. To thee and me it's totally counterintuitive, but they have a weltanschauung that seeks to defend the faith.
But how does that work?
Any counter evidence must be rejected - rationalised away. But that must have a limit - even if you believe your wife would never cheat on you and ignore warning signs if you walk in in her in bed your going to accept it as true.
So how does this person brain manage to weight the evidence (because that is what they are doing really- finding flaws in every bit of evidence that contradicts them) despite envountering the equivalent of there wife in bed on what must be a daily basis?
|Date:||September 24th, 2010 10:40 am (UTC)|| |
OK... Just a few thoughts.
Everything's moving, it's all relative, you can choose your "static centre" that everything else moves relative to however you like. We go for heliocentrism as our best first approximation because it makes the formulae for planetary motion simplest. But if you don't mind a few extra terms to deal with retrograde motion etc you can choose geocentrism.
Why would you? Because you want to, on religious grounds.
How to justify it? There are clear problems with simple Newtonian mechanics when applied to astrophyics: space craft don't end up quite where predicted etc. We infer Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy, plus the fact that Newton isn't 100% applicable out there - curvature of spacetime etc. They use those kinds of problems as evidence that heliocentrism is simply wrong, where we say it's imperfect for the domain under consideration but still the best first approximation.
I've been expecting this - and I should probably Google for other examples and post the links, but I'm using my mobile...
The only surprise is that it took so long: Creationism is well-established over much of North America, and it is entirely predictable that some or other literal-interpretation fundamentalist will try to push the boundaries.
I had thought of trolling the idea, years ago, but decided that there's no point trying to discredit anti-scientific nutjobs - and every possibility that the whole idea might be taken seriously and start to gain momentum.
We're not quite there yet. Place your bets on which state, and in which year, the schools will carry textbooks giving equal prominence to the Helio- and Geocentric theories.