Richard Lewontin (1929 – 2021)

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 5, 2021

Darwinism, Naturalism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Evolutionary biologist, perhaps best known for:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons” at New York Review of Books (January 9, 1997), a review of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Random House)

We shall see.

Comments

WJM, I hate to burst your bubble, but Bishop Berkeley, a Christian, beat you to idealism by a couple of hundred years
George Berkeley, (born March 12, 1685, near Dysert Castle, near Thomastown?, County Kilkenny, Ireland—died January 14, 1753, Oxford, England), Anglo-Irish Anglican bishop, philosopher, and scientist best known for his empiricist and idealist philosophy, which holds that reality consists only of minds and their ideas; https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Berkeley
bornagain77_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Querius,,,. Yes, Dr. Egnor does have a way to put things that cuts through a lot of the BS. I've really grown in my respect for Dr. Egnor over the years.bornagain77_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

Q said:
But many people ignore the science or say they can’t see or hear the evidence. The simple reason is that they can’t see or hear what science is telling us is because they don’t want to see or hear. The reason that they don’t want to see or hear is because they love their sins.
I think it's clear we all ignore some evidence, and/or sort it conveniently to our beliefs. Some of us are just willing to admit it. It's easy to point the finger at the materialists/physicalists/atheists, but what about the Christian exclusivists, like BA77 and others that simply ignore the clear evidence against Christian afterlife exclusivity, or the evidence I linked to above that disproves the idea (the generally accepted one, anyway) of an "objective reality?"William J Murray_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @87,
As Dr. Egnor noted, “the issue here (with MWI) isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric.”
Thank you. Hits the nail on the head. The most heavily tested area of science is physics and the most heavily tested area in physics is quantum mechanics, which screams at researchers that determinism and materialism is dead. As dead as Monty Python' s "Norwegian blue" parrot. But many people ignore the science or say they can't see or hear the evidence. The simple reason is that they can't see or hear what science is telling us is because they don't want to see or hear. The reason that they don't want to see or hear is because they love their sins. And when they stand before the God of the universe, they plan to use ignorance as their excuse: "I didn't know that was wrong." But see how that plays out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB62oaOeqR0 -QQuerius_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Recent experimentation has revealed that "wave collapse" vs "multiverse branching" to be a false dichotomy. It appears now that "wave collapse" only occurs for the observers in question, not everyone. The wave can be collapsed for one observer, and not collapsed for those "outside" of the observer's knowledge. https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/03/12/136684/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/ This doesn't support the "branching multiverse" or the "observer collapse" theory, because in both cases those involved would be able to reconcile their observations with each other. But, guess what theory predicts this result? Yep. My Idealism Reality Theory, which puts each observer at the center of their own experiential reality tapping into informational potential.William J Murray_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Seversky objects to the fact that the Copernican principle has been overturned thusly,
Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. If we include ancestral forms, it’s about 6,000,000 years. The Universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old so for the overwhelming majority of its existence this Universe was apparently able to get along just fine without us observing it or being its centerpiece. In other words, the Copernican Principle is doing just fine, thank you.
Yet, Seversky appealing to space-time to try to refute the undermining of the Copernican principle by quantum mechanics, is a bit like Seversky trying to claim that 'the price of tea in china' refutes quantum mechanics. The actions of Quantum Mechanics could care less about space-time. With apologies to LaPlace. quantum mechanics scoffs at the entire concept of space-time and sniffs, "Space-time???, I have no need of that hypothesis",,, As Professor Crull states in the following article, “entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted,,, it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old.”
You thought quantum mechanics was weird: check out entangled time – Feb. 2018 Excerpt: Just when you thought quantum mechanics couldn’t get any weirder, a team of physicists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reported in 2013 that they had successfully entangled photons that never coexisted. Previous experiments involving a technique called ‘entanglement swapping’ had already showed quantum correlations across time, by delaying the measurement of one of the coexisting entangled particles; but Eli Megidish and his collaborators were the first to show entanglement between photons whose lifespans did not overlap at all.,,, Up to today, most experiments have tested entanglement over spatial gaps. The assumption is that the ‘nonlocal’ part of quantum nonlocality refers to the entanglement of properties across space. But what if entanglement also occurs across time? Is there such a thing as temporal nonlocality?,,, The data revealed the existence of quantum correlations between ‘temporally nonlocal’ photons 1 and 4. That is, entanglement can occur across two quantum systems that never coexisted. What on Earth can this mean? Prima facie, it seems as troubling as saying that the polarity of starlight in the far-distant past – say, greater than twice Earth’s lifetime – nevertheless influenced the polarity of starlight falling through your amateur telescope this winter. Even more bizarrely: maybe it implies that the measurements carried out by your eye upon starlight falling through your telescope this winter somehow dictated the polarity of photons more than 9 billion years old. https://aeon.co/ideas/you-thought-quantum-mechanics-was-weird-check-out-entangled-time
Of supplemental note: There is a very strong correlation between defining attributes of the immaterial mind and the actions that we are witnessing in quantum mechanics:
How the mental attributes of ‘the experience of the now’ and of ‘free will’ strongly correlate with recent advances in quantum mechanics https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/michael-egnor-talks-with-podcaster-lucas-skrobot-about-how-we-can-know-we-are-not-zombies/#comment-706147
Verse
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Seversky states, "Even if it were a well-established and uncontested fact that the presence of a conscious human observer is required for the wave-function to collapse – which it is not, it is still only one interpretation of QM." Funny that Seversky never quite gets around to mentioning exactly which alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics he supports I can't say that I blame him, all the alternative interpretations that I have seen atheistic materialists postulate, besides being incoherent, have been insane. For prime example of just how insane these 'other interpretations' can be, we have the atheist's Many Worlds Interpretation. Many Worlds truly exposes reductive materialism in all its full blown absurdity. i.e. The material particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone observes a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle, (somehow magically), instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes with a virtual infinity of other people observing the same particle going in a virtual infinity of different directions
Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015 Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way. That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,, http://aeon.co/magazine/science/is-the-many-worlds-hypothesis-just-a-fantasy/ Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation Has Many Problems – Philip Ball – October 18, 2018 Excerpt: It, (The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics), says that our unique experience as individuals is not simply a bit imperfect, a bit unreliable and fuzzy, but is a complete illusion. If we really pursue that idea, rather than pretending that it gives us quantum siblings, we find ourselves unable to say anything about anything that can be considered a meaningful truth. We are not just suspended in language; we have denied language any agency. The MWI — if taken seriously — is unthinkable. Its implications undermine a scientific description of the world far more seriously than do those of any of its rivals. The MWI tells you not to trust empiricism at all: Rather than imposing the observer on the scene, it destroys any credible account of what an observer can possibly be. Some Everettians insist that this is not a problem and that you should not be troubled by it. Perhaps you are not, but I am. https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics-has-many-problems-20181018/
As Dr. Egnor noted, “the issue here (with MWI) isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric.”
Atheist Physicist Sean Carroll: An Infinite Number of Universes Is More Plausible Than God – Michael Egnor – August 2, 2017 Excerpt: as I noted, the issue here isn’t physics or even logic. The issue is psychiatric. We have a highly accomplished physicist, who regards the existence of God as preposterous, asserting that the unceasing creation of infinite numbers of new universes by every atom in the cosmos at every moment is actually happening (as we speak!), and that it is a perfectly rational and sane inference. People have been prescribed anti-psychotic drugs for less. Now of course Carroll isn’t crazy, not in any medical way. He’s merely given his assent to a crazy ideology — atheist materialism —,,, What can we in the reality-based community do when an ideology — the ideology that is currently dominant in science — is not merely wrong, but delusional? I guess calling it what it is is a place to start. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/08/atheist-physicist-sean-carroll-an-infinite-number-of-universes-is-more-plausible-than-god/
bornagain77_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT}

Bob at 83, perhaps you should just stay away from trying to use metaphors. You example is gibberish.bornagain77_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

seversky:
Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. If we include ancestral forms, it’s about 6,000,000 years.
There isn't any evidence that humans evolved from non-humans. There aren't any known naturalistic mechanisms capable of the feat. And there isn't any way to objectively test the claim. You lose.ET_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

for about 200,000 years. it’s about 6,000,000 years. to be 13.8 billion years old Case dismissed!
:)) Can you prove the speed of light was always the same we observe today? Case dismissed!Sandy_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT}

yet Lakatos and Kuhn used the Copernican revolution, (in large measure), as a basis of reasoning for their philosophies (post 68),,, In so far as they did, they undermined their critiques against Popper.,,, Case closed!
Regardless of how they used them. We're back to Dawkins being a Christian because he references the Bible.Bob O'H_{July 11, 2021
July
07
Jul
11
11
2021
01:31 AM
1
01
31
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77/81
Whatever Bob, the Copernican principle is wrong, the principle of experimental testing/falsification is what has (finally) shown it to be wrong (posts 71 thru 75),. yet Lakatos and Kuhn used the Copernican revolution, (in large measure), as a basis of reasoning for their philosophies (post 68),,, In so far as they did, they undermined their critiques against Popper.,,, Case closed!
Even if it were a well-established and uncontested fact that the presence of a conscious human observer is required for the wave-function to collapse - which it is not, it is still only one interpretation of QM. We have only become aware of the quantum world over the last 150 years, say. We have only been able to indirectly observe quantum phenomena for much less than that. Modern humans have only been around for about 200,000 years. If we include ancestral forms, it's about 6,000,000 years. The Universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old so for the overwhelming majority of its existence this Universe was apparently able to get along just fine without us observing it or being its centerpiece. In other words, the Copernican Principle is doing just fine, thank you. Case dismissed!Seversky_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Whatever Bob, the Copernican principle is wrong, the principle of experimental testing/falsification is what has (finally) shown it to be wrong (posts 71 thru 75),. yet Lakatos and Kuhn used the Copernican revolution, (in large measure), as a basis of reasoning for their philosophies (post 68),,, In so far as they did, they undermined their critiques against Popper.,,, Case closed! I'm sure that you, as a Darwinian. atheist, will object once again. However, I don't care. I can't force you to be reasonable. Sorry for the wrong dates, The dates came from these links, which I listed at post 68, (via a very quick google search,,, as I explained at post 68),,,
The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought – Thomas S. Kuhn – 1992 (Revised edition) Excerpt of description: Mr. Kuhn displays the full scope of the Copernican Revolution as simultaneously an episode in the internal development of astronomy, a critical turning point in the evolution of scientific thought, and a crisis in Western man’s concept of his relation to the universe and to God. https://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary-Astronomy-Development/dp/0674171039 Why did Copernicus’s research programme supersede Ptolemy’s? By Elie Zahar and Imre Lakatos – 1978 Excerpt of Introduction: I first should like to offer an apology for imposing a philosophical talk upon you on the occasion of the quincentenary of Copernicus’s birth. My excuse is that a few years ago I suggested a specific method for using history of science as an arbiter of some authority when it comes to debates in philosophy of science and I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-methodology-of-scientific-research-programmes/why-did-copernicuss-research-programme-supersede-ptolemys/CBBBCA4E3CD03277CB460AE91C3D3320
The first was a revised edition date, which explains why it is off, and the second date, I guess, was published posthumously.,,, Since Copernicus was born in 1473, I guess Lakatos must have given the talk in 1973. i.e. the "quincentenary of Copernicus’s birth"bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

So are you holding that Kuhn and Lakatos may have held that the supposed ‘science’ and/or philosophy behind the Copernican revolution did not unseat the earth from any consideration of centrality in the universe, and was therefore somehow not a valid form of reasoning for them to use??
What? Do you really have so little clue about what we are discussing? We're not discussing if "the Copernican revolution did not unseat the earth from any consideration of centrality in the universe", we're discussing how two people interpreted the process by which teh Copernican revolution came about. Once more, you are not providing any evidence to back up your claim that Kuhn and Lakatos were led astray.
For crying out loud, Kuhn wrote a book on the subject in 1992, and Kuhn’s ‘ad hoc’ stories criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience smells an awful lot like the infamous ‘epicycles’,,,, Moreover Lakatos in 1978 directly stated, “I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science”,,,
Both of those dates are wrong - i assume by the first you mean 1962. I don't know what the correct date for the second should be, but if that's what Lakatos stated it wouldn't be 4 years after his death.
It ain’t rocket science,,,
No, but it does require research and reading what Kuhn and Lakatos actually wrote. Something you do not seem capable of doing to back up your claims about what Kuhn and Lakatos actually thought.Bob O'H_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

HUH? So are you holding that Kuhn and Lakatos may have held that the supposed 'science' and/or philosophy behind the Copernican revolution did not unseat the earth from any consideration of centrality in the universe, and was therefore somehow not a valid form of reasoning for them to use?? Otherwise, your objection simply makes no sense. Of course they thought the supposed science and/or philosophy behind the Copernican revolution was a valid form of reasoning and used it, in large measure, to develop their own philosophies of science. . For crying out loud, Kuhn wrote a book on the subject in 1992, and Kuhn's 'ad hoc' stories criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience smells an awful lot like the infamous 'epicycles',,,, Moreover Lakatos in 1978 directly stated, “I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science”,,, I don't know about you, but that is certainly enough for me to see that they were both heavily, and negatively, influenced by the Copernican revolution. Anyways, (as I have shown in posts 71 thru 75), the Copernican principle is now shown to be false by numerous lines of empirical evidence, thus, to whatever extent they based their philosophical arguments on the "Copernican' form of reasoning, (which I hold to be a large part, and which Lakatos himself admitted to being huge part of his basis of reasoning), their arguments against Popper's criteria of falsification simply collapse in on themselves. It ain't rocket science,,, (and you ain't chemical scum no matter what Hawking may have said about you! :) )bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

ba77 - you're totally missing the point. You have shown that Kuhn and Lakatos used the Copernican revolution in their arguments, but you haven't shown what their views on it were. You haven't demonstrated that they were led astray. I didn't read your 8000 words, I only skimmed through them to see what they said about Kuhn and Lakatos. As it was, essentially, nothing they failed to back up your argument about leading Kuhn and Lakatos astray, so I didn't need to delve further. Now, can you present any evidence that showed what Kuhn's and Lakatos' opinions (and nobody else's) were on the Copernican revolution? From that, can you then go on to explain how they were led astray?Bob O'H_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Bob, at post 68 I provided evidence that Lakatos and Kuhn both held tightly to the 'Copernican revolution' in developing their particular scientific philosophies. In posts 71 through 75 (which are 5 'long' posts, not 4 posts as you claimed, and which tells me that you did not even bother to read the 5 posts), I laid out the empirical evidence for why the Copernican Principle is now falsified as a valid heuristic, i.e. guiding principle, in science. At the bottom of post 75, which you apparently did not even bother to read before commenting, and in summary, I stated that,,,,
And of final note to Lakatos and Kuhn’s apparently heavy reliance on the ‘Copernican revolution’, (in order for them to develop their philosophical critiques of Popper’s ‘naive’ falsification model), since the Copernican principle is now, itself, shown to be empirically false, then, obviously, in so far as Lakatos and Kuhn have both relied on the Copernican revolution in order for them to develop their specific arguments against Popper’s falsification criteria, their arguments collapse in on themselves. (Which is not to say that their philosophical standards for science don’t have some merit, but it is just to say that their specific arguments against Popper in particular collapse in on themselves in so far as they relied on the Copernican model to do so) As I stated previously, “it is a bit of poetic justice for Popper that experimental falsification itself would have the final and last word in the entire debate” as to what constitutes a real science and as to what constitutes a pseudoscience.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

Wow, ba77. 4 long posts totally over 8000 words and you ignored my point. You haven't provided any evidence that Kuhn and Lakatos were led (or lead) astray. You don't even look at what either of them actually wrote.Bob O'H_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

One final note in regards to overturning the atheistic notion that we are 'chemical scum'. Although, as has been shown in this post, both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, (in a rather dramatic fashion), overturn the Copernican Principle, and return humanity back to centrality in the universe, (and in spite of that stunning correspondence between the two theories), General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics still simply refuse, mathematically, to be combined into a single overarching ‘theory of everything. And yet, by allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the "freedom of choice" loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here is a recent video where I (try to) make that case
Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE
And here are a few more notes regarding the Shroud of Turin that further support my claim
(February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
And of final note to Lakatos and Kuhn's apparently heavy reliance on the 'Copernican revolution', (in order for them to develop their philosophical critiques of Popper's 'naive' falsification model), since the Copernican principle is now, itself, shown to be empirically false, then, obviously, in so far as Lakatos and Kuhn have both relied on the Copernican revolution in order for them to develop their specific arguments against Popper's falsification criteria, their arguments collapse in on themselves. (Which is not to say that their philosophical standards for science don't have some merit, but it is just to say that their specific arguments against Popper in particular collapse in on themselves in so far as they relied on the Copernican model to do so) As I stated previously, "it is a bit of poetic justice for Popper that experimental falsification itself would have the final and last word in the entire debate" as to what constitutes a real science and as to what constitutes a pseudoscience. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019 Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”. https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html Quantum paradox points to shaky foundations of reality - George Musser - Aug. 17, 2020 Excerpt: Now, researchers in Australia and Taiwan offer perhaps the sharpest demonstration that Wigner’s paradox is real. In a study published this week in Nature Physics, they transform the thought experiment into a mathematical theorem that confirms the irreconcilable contradiction at the heart of the scenario. The team also tests the theorem with an experiment, using photons as proxies for the humans. Whereas Wigner believed resolving the paradox requires quantum mechanics to break down for large systems such as human observers, some of the new study’s authors believe something just as fundamental is on thin ice: objectivity. It could mean there is no such thing as an absolute fact, one that is as true for me as it is for you. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/08/quantum-paradox-points-shaky-foundations-reality
Because of such consistent, and repeatable. experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
“It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe. And yet, have you ever before read a sentence having meaning similar to that of my preceding sentence? Likely you have not, and the reason you have not is, in my opinion, that physicists are in a state of denial, and have fears and agonies that are very similar to the fears and agonies that Copernicus and Galileo went through with their perturbations of society.” Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics – John Hopkins University http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/quantum.enigma.html
On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, (i.e. completely contrary to the atheistic belief that we are 'chemical scum), in quantum mechanics we also find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, (and one of the most scientifically honest atheists that I have personally ever run across), stated in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
Closing the ‘free will’ loophole: Using distant quasars to test Bell’s theorem – February 20, 2014 Excerpt: Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics. “It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140220112515.htm
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the “freedom-of-choice” loophole back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the researchers themselves, who are conducting the quantum experiments, are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018 Abstract: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.080403
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining "freedom of choice" loophole in quantum mechanics, it is empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.” As well, as should be needless to say, this is yet another VERY powerful line of empirical evidence that directly falsifies the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity since humans themselves are brought into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level, and therefore humans are empirically shown to have far, far, more significance, value, and dignity in this universe than atheists have presumed with their fallacious, (and depressing), 'chemical scum' model of humanity. As much as it may hurt atheists’s feelings to know this, and as far as our best science can tell us, we are not merely “chemical scum” as Hawking, via the Copernican Principle, tried to imply that we were. Hopefully atheists will get over the 'sad fact' that they are not merely chemical scum in short order. ?
Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”
bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT}

On top of all that, and the further support my claim that 'humans are NOT chemical scum", in the following paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’
The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014 Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation ,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,, ,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers. According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13) This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,, http://home.messiah.edu/~rcollins/Fine-tuning/Greer-Heard%20Forum%20paper%20draft%20for%20posting.pdf
Of related interest to that, we also find that we just happen to, “Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to be able to observe the Cosmic Background Radiation”
We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to be able to observe the Cosmic Background Radiation – Hugh Ross – video (7:12 minute mark) https://youtu.be/MxOGeqVOsvc?t=431
To further solidify the fact that humans have far more significance in this universe than atheists have presupposed, (with their ‘chemical scum’ model ? ), in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
“So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].” – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe) https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
The Scale of the Universe https://htwins.net/scale2/
And while that finding by Dr. Neil Turok is certainly very interesting, it just gives life in general a ‘middle’ position in the universe, and still does not give humanity in particular, a ‘middle’ position in the universe. Yet, Dr. William Demski, (and company), in the following graph, have refined the estimate with better data, and have given us a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
Magnifying the Universe https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/
And that more precise figure does indeed give humanity in particular a ‘middle’ position in the universe. Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity. Now let’s get back to observers themselves being central in the universe. Whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe. As the following Wheeler's Delayed choice experiment that was done with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,
Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015 Excerpt: Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering. http://phys.org/news/2015-05-quantum-theory-weirdness.html
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

In fact, (and directly contrary to Stephen Hawking's claim that we are merely 'chemical scum'), according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, even individual people can be designated as the 'center of the universe',,,
You Technically Are the Center of the Universe – May 2016 Excerpt: (due to the 1 in 10^120 finely tuned expansion of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity) no matter where you stand, it will appear that everything in the universe is expanding around you. So the center of the universe is technically — everywhere. The moment you pick a frame of reference, that point becomes the center of the universe. Here’s another way to think about it: The sphere of space we can see around us is the visible universe. We’re looking at the light from stars that’s traveled millions or billions of years to reach us. When we reach the 13.8 billion-light-year point, we’re seeing the universe just moments after the Big Bang happened. But someone standing on another planet, a few light-years to the right, would see a different sphere of the universe. It’s sort of like lighting a match in the middle of a dark room: Your observable universe is the sphere of the room that the light illuminates. But someone standing in a different spot in the room will be able to see a different sphere. So technically, we are all standing at the center of our own observable universes. https://mic.com/articles/144214/you-technically-are-the-center-of-the-universe-thanks-to-a-wacky-physics-quirk
In fact, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he, via his infamous 'thought experiments', gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
Introduction to special relativity Excerpt: Einstein’s approach was based on thought experiments, calculations, and the principle of relativity, which is the notion that all physical laws should appear the same (that is, take the same basic form) to all inertial observers.,,, Each observer has a distinct “frame of reference” in which velocities are measured,,,, per wikipedia The happiest thought of my life. Excerpt: In 1920 Einstein commented that a thought came into his mind when writing the above-mentioned paper he called it “the happiest thought of my life”: “The gravitational field has only a relative existence… Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house – at least in his immediate surroundings – there exists no gravitational field.” http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node85.html
We will get back to observers being central in the universe in a little while, but before we do that, and to more firmly establish that the earth should be given a ‘privileged’ position in the universe, it is first necessary to point out that anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system. Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these recently discovered ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.
Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw
Moreover, as the following paper highlights, we find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, “implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon”,,,
A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies – Ashok K. Singal Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015) Abstract We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2
And it is the large scale structures of the universe, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, which give us a very strong scientific reason to believe the earth should, once again, be considered to have a ‘privileged’, even central, position in the universe. As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,
“Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.” For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms: “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.” – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,.. Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.” – illustration https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png – article http://www.robertsungenis.com/gww/features/Welcome%20to%20Catholic%20Star%20Wars.pdf
Moreover, due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57, we find that “These tiny temperature variations (in the CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Thus, (with the CMBR and the large scale structure of the universe combining to strongly indicate that the Earth is the ‘center of the universe', and due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57), our best evidence from cosmology that we have thus far overturns the Copernican principle, and it even reveals teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the beginning of creation. Which is to say The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluctuation as atheists have erroneously presumed in their ‘rapid inflation’ models.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Job 38:4-5 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?
bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Bob, first, it is "led astray" not "lead astray". "Lead astray" means someone purposely deceiving someone into a wrong path, (which I often suspect Darwinists of purposely doing), "Led astray" means someone being honestly mistaken in the wrong path they are taking. Secondly, I have provided a link to the evidence, twice now, that Lakatos and Kuhn, (as well as practically everybody else), were "led astray" because of, first and foremost, the Copernican principle which sprang directly from the now falsified heliocentric model of the universe.
April 2021- the Copernican principle, which sprang from the heliocentric model of the universe, has now been, for all intents and purposes, experimentally overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science. (as well as being overturned by other lines of evidence) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-of-steve-meyer-if-humans-are-so-important-to-god-why-did-they-take-so-long-to-develop/#comment-727599
But anyways, to spell it all out once again. The Copernican Principle, and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, is an outgrowth of Nicolaus Copernicus’s discovery that the Earth is not the center of the solar system. (i.e. It was falsely, and simplistically, assumed that since the Earth is not the center of the solar system, then the Earth can't possibly be the center of the universe, hence the Copernican principle).
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) was a mathematician and astronomer who proposed that the sun was stationary in the center of the universe and the earth revolved around it. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/
And the Copernican principle, (and/or the principle of mediocrity), is one of the two main ‘supposed’ scientific evidences, (the false narrative of human evolution being the other ‘supposed’ scientific evidence), that atheists have appealed to try to claim that man has no reason to believe that his life may have any higher purpose, meaning, value, or significance, in this universe, (much less that there may be any significance to our lives beyond our lives in this temporal universe) .
Copernican principle Excerpt: In physical cosmology, the Copernican principle, is an alternative name of the mediocrity principle,,, stating that humans (the Earth, or the Solar system) are not privileged observers of the universe.[1] Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus’s argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle. – per wikipedia Carl Sagan coined the term ‘principle of mediocrity’ to refer to the idea that scientists should assume that nothing is special about humanity’s situation https://books.google.com/books?id=rR5BCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false Mediocrity principle Excerpt: The (Mediocrity) principle has been taken to suggest that there is nothing very unusual about the evolution of the Solar System, Earth’s history, the evolution of biological complexity, human evolution, or any one nation. It is a heuristic in the vein of the Copernican principle, and is sometimes used as a philosophical statement about the place of humanity. The idea is to assume mediocrity, rather than starting with the assumption that a phenomenon is special, privileged, exceptional, or even superior.[2][3] – per wikipedia
In popular culture atheists have used the Copernican Principle to great effect to try to argue that man is, basically, completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. For one instance out of many instances, in 1995 the late Stephen Hawking, (who was a fairly famous atheist), bluntly stated “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
“The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,” – Stephen Hawking – 1995 TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken,
So there you go, according to a leading 'scientific' atheist, and via the Copernican principle, (which sprang directly from the now falsified heliocentric model of the universe), your life has no more significance than chemical scum. And yet, despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, (and therefore concede the necessary premise to Hawking’s argument that we are just chemical scum), the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principal is now shown, via our most powerful theories in science, to be a false assumption. First off, in establishing this fact, and directly contrary to what is widely believed, Copernicus never actually did experimentally prove that the geocentric model was a incorrect description of the universe, and that the heliocentric model was a ‘more correct’ description of the universe. To repeat my Philip Ball reference,
The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016 Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,, It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it. This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,, In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
Simply put, just because the earth is not to be considered central in the solar system itself, that does not automatically mean, as is falsely assumed in the Copernican principle, that the Earth cannot be considered central in the universe as a whole. Indeed, the sun itself, contrary to what Nicolaus Copernicus held Ito be true n his heliocentric model, is certainly not to be considered central in the universe. (Shoot, technically speaking, from a mathematical standpoint, the sun is not even to be considered directly in the center of our solar system),
Is the Sun the center of our Solar System? Why? Excerpt: Actually, the centre of our solar system is a spot just above the surface of the sun, directly in line with Jupiter, about 48,720 km (it varies somewhat, with the orbits of the planets) above the sun's surface, just a little further away from the sun than our communications satellites are from us. https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Sun-the-center-of-our-Solar-System-Why
Nor can any other place in the universe be designated as the ‘stationary center’ of the universe. General Relativity itself, one of our most powerful theories in science, makes this point clear. As Stephen ‘chemical scum’ Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” - Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010
And as George Ellis, (a former close colleague of Hawking), stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations… For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds… What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” – George Ellis – W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55
And as Fred Hoyle, (the discoverer of the nucleosynthesis of carbon), himself stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentrism and geokineticism] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view…. Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.” – Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
And even as Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.” - Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe. As Einstein himself noted,
“One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921 “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*” –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.
And as Lincoln Barnett explained, “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second”,,,
“We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second” - Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)
In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
Where is the centre of the universe?: Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, (obviously), as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
How Einstein Revealed the Universe’s Strange “Nonlocality” – George Musser | Oct 20, 2015 Excerpt: Under most circumstances, we can ignore this nonlocality. You can designate some available chunk of matter as a reference point and use it to anchor a coordinate grid. You can, to the chagrin of Santa Barbarans, take Los Angeles as the center of the universe and define every other place with respect to it. In this framework, you can go about your business in blissful ignorance of space’s fundamental inability to demarcate locations.,, In short, Einstein’s theory is nonlocal in a more subtle and insidious way than Newton’s theory of gravity was. Newtonian gravity acted at a distance, but at least it operated within a framework of absolute space. Einsteinian gravity has no such element of wizardry; its effects ripple through the universe at the speed of light. Yet it demolishes the framework, violating locality in what was, for Einstein, its most basic sense: the stipulation that all things have a location. General relativity confounds our intuitive picture of space as a kind of container in which material objects reside and forces us to search for an entirely new conception of place. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality// How Einstein Lost His Bearings, and With Them, General Relativity – March 2018 Excerpt: Einstein’s field equations — the equations of general relativity — describe how the shape of space-time evolves in response to the presence of matter and energy. To describe that evolution, you need to impose on space-time a coordinate system — like lines of latitude and longitude — that tells you which points are where. The most important thing to recognize about coordinate systems is that they’re human contrivances. Maybe in one coordinate system we label a point (0, 0, 0), and in another we label that same point (1, 1, 1). The physical properties haven’t changed — we’ve just tagged the point differently. “Those labels are something about us, not something about the world,” said James Weatherall, a philosopher of science at the University of California, Irvine.,,, The Einstein field equations we have today are generally covariant. They express the same physical truths about the universe — how space-time curves in the presence of energy and matter — regardless of what coordinates you use to label things.,,, as Einstein discovered,,, the universe doesn’t admit any one privileged choice of coordinates. https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-einstein-lost-his-bearings-and-with-them-general-relativity-20180314/
bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Evolutionism, ie evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, isn't a theory because it is not tested empirically. Thank you Bob O'H.ET_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

Yes, they were both aware of the Copernican revolution. Now you need to provide evidence that they were "lead astray". At the moment you're at the level of suggesting Dawkins is a Christian because he has written about the Bible.Bob O'H_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

Of note, I googled 'Kuhn Copernican Revolution" and my first result was this book on Amazon:
The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought - Thomas S. Kuhn - 1992 (Revised edition) Excerpt of description: Mr. Kuhn displays the full scope of the Copernican Revolution as simultaneously an episode in the internal development of astronomy, a critical turning point in the evolution of scientific thought, and a crisis in Western man's concept of his relation to the universe and to God. https://www.amazon.com/Copernican-Revolution-Planetary-Astronomy-Development/dp/0674171039
Then I googled "Lakatos Copernican Revolution" and this paper was my first hit,
Why did Copernicus's research programme supersede Ptolemy's? By Elie Zahar and Imre Lakatos - 1978 Excerpt of Introduction: I first should like to offer an apology for imposing a philosophical talk upon you on the occasion of the quincentenary of Copernicus's birth. My excuse is that a few years ago I suggested a specific method for using history of science as an arbiter of some authority when it comes to debates in philosophy of science and I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-methodology-of-scientific-research-programmes/why-did-copernicuss-research-programme-supersede-ptolemys/CBBBCA4E3CD03277CB460AE91C3D3320
So it appears I was correct in my 'sneaking hunch', and that both Lakatos and Kuhn were heavily, and negatively, influenced by the centuries long heliocentric/geocentric debate in their critique of Popper's 'naive' falsification. In fact Imre Lakatos, self admittedly, practically bases his entire argument on it, i.e. "I thought that the Copernican revolution might in particular serve as an important test case between some contemporary philosophies of science",,, But anyways, regardless of the fact that both Lakatos and Kuhn were led astray in their own philosophies of science by the Copernican revolution, each of the standards that Lakatos and Kuhn developed, apart from falsification, to judge whether a theory is a pseudoscience of not, i.e. 'novel predictions' and 'ad hoc' stories, (and as I pointed out previously at post 42), each of those standards, by themselves, can also be used, on top of falsification, to see that Darwinian evolution is a pseudoscience. Thus by any philosophical metric that one may choose to judge whether a theory is scientific of not, (i.e. Popper, Lakatos, or Kuhn), Darwin's theory still fails to qualify as a science. As I stated previously, there is simply nothing within Darwin's theory that the Darwinists can point to and say, "and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science and not a pseudoscience." Supplemental note, (and to repeat)
the Copernican principle, which sprang from the heliocentric model of the universe, has now been, for all intents and purposes, experimentally overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science. (as well as being overturned by other lines of evidence) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-of-steve-meyer-if-humans-are-so-important-to-god-why-did-they-take-so-long-to-develop/#comment-727599
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

ba77 -
Falsification is simply the bread and butter that Physics lives by.
Not outside of Popper World it isn't. And indeed once you get onto epicycles you demonstrate this:
Besides the ‘epicycle story’ being false, and contrary to what is widely believed, Copernicus, nor anyone else, has ever actually experimentally proven that the geocentric model was an incorrect description of the universe, and that the heliocentric model was the ‘more correct’ description of the universe.
So epicycles weren't falsified, but were still disgarded. Take that anti-Popperians! I don't have my Lakatos or Kuhn at home, so I can't check the primary sources, but the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on Lakatos cite the precession of Mercury and parallax as falsifications which didn't lead to the abandonment of (respectively) Newton and Copernicus. In the case of Mercury, it was only when Einstein came along with a better explanation that it was used to support Einstein over Newton. Kuhn did use the Copernican revolution as one example (amongst several others), but he acknowledges that Copernicus' model wasn't any simpler or more accurate. Kuhn's argument is that Ptolomaic astronomy was in crisis: it was being falsified, and ad hoc modifications were being made. What Copernicus did was to bring a different way of thinking to the problem: it is this which enabled progress to be made in simplifying his system, and (eventually) lead to better predictions. Neither Kuhn nor Lakatos deny that theories aren't tested empirically, rather they don't have such a naïve view of the response of scientists to these tests.Bob O'H_{July 10, 2021
July
07
Jul
10
10
2021
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

Bob apologizes, which is good, but he apologizes only after making this caveat, (which is not so good)
I wasn’t trying to claim that physics is not science. Rather that the naïve falsificationist position you are espousing would have to lead to that conclusion.
Yet I hold falsification to be far less 'naive' than Lakatos, Kuhn, and apparently Bob hold. Falsification is simply the bread and butter that Physics lives by. For instance, General Relativity survived, with flying colors, this impressive 2013 attempt to falsify it. As the following article states, "If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants and that is exactly where Einstein stands.”
Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013 Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters. If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants and that is exactly where Einstein stands.” http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html
My guess, (and it is only a guess and I could very well be wrong), but my sneaking hunch is that both Lakatos and Kuhn, (besides being personally biased to promote their own philosophical standards for judging whether a theory is pseudoscientific or not), were probably heavily, and negatively, influenced in their thinking about 'naive' falsification by the centuries long dispute between heliocentrism and geocentrism. The story that is usually told is that geocentric model became so laden with epicycles that it was eventually discarded in favor of the heliocentric model. But that simplistic story is simply not true. As Philip Ball explains, "It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it. This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,, In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse."
The Tyranny of Simple Explanations – Philip Ball – AUG 11, 2016 Excerpt: Take the debate between the ancient geocentric view of the universe—in which the sun and planets move around a central Earth—and Nicolaus Copernicus’s heliocentric theory, with the Sun at the center and the Earth and other planets moving around it.,,, It is often claimed that, by the 16th century, this Ptolemaic model of the universe had become so laden with these epicycles that it was on the point of falling apart. Then along came the Polish astronomer with his heliocentric universe, and no more epicycles were needed. The two theories explained the same astronomical observations, but Copernicus’s was simpler, and so Occam’s razor tells us to prefer it. This is wrong for many reasons. First, Copernicus didn’t do away with epicycles.,,, In an introductory tract called the Commentariolus, published around 1514, he said he could explain the motions of the heavens with “just” 34 epicycles. Many later commentators took this to mean that the geocentric model must have needed many more than 34, but there’s no actual evidence for that. And the historian of astronomy Owen Gingerich has dismissed the common assumption that the Ptolemaic model was so epicycle-heavy that it was close to collapse. He argues that a relatively simple design was probably still in use in Copernicus’s time.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
Besides the 'epicycle story' being false, and contrary to what is widely believed, Copernicus, nor anyone else, has ever actually experimentally proven that the geocentric model was an incorrect description of the universe, and that the heliocentric model was the ‘more correct’ description of the universe. There is simply no experiment that has ever been conducted by anyone that has ever proven that the earth is in motion and that the sun, (or any other place in the universe), is at rest. As Historian Lincoln Barnett explains, "We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,,"
"We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second” Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)
Moreover, the Copernican principle, which sprang from the heliocentric model of the universe, has now been, for all intents and purposes, experimentally overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science. (as well as being overturned by other lines of evidence)
April 2021 - the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, our two most powerful theories in science: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-of-steve-meyer-if-humans-are-so-important-to-god-why-did-they-take-so-long-to-develop/#comment-727599
In short, the heliocentric model of the universe, contrary to what the most people believe, has now been 'falsified' by experimental evidence, and the geocentric model of the universe is now heavily favored by experimental evidence Thus in conclusion, (and although I could be wrong), I have a sneaking hunch that both Lakatos and Kuhn were heavily, and negatively, influenced in their thinking about 'naive' falsification by the centuries long conflict between heliocentrism and geocentrism, and the false "epicycle' narrative that goes along with it, a narrative that is widely, (and wrongly), believed to be true. If so, then their argument against 'naive' falsification collapses since, although it was certainly a very long time in coming, the centuries long conflict between the two theories was settled and the heliocentric model of the universe was finally experimentally 'falsified' and the geocentric model is now heavily favored by several lines of experimental evidence. If my 'sneaking hunch' is correct about Lakatos and Kuhn being negatively influenced in their thinking about falsification because of heliocentric/geocentrism, then it is a bit of poetic justice for Popper that experimental falsification itself would have the final and last word in the entire debate.bornagain77_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Einstein's equation for how gravity affects light could have been falsified without falsifying the whole of relativity. Eddington could have observed that the Sun bent light but that the stars were not where Einstein's equation predicted.ET_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT}

ba77 - I wasn't trying to claim that physics is not science. Rather that the naïve falsificationist position you are espousing would have to lead to that conclusion. I appreciate that what I wrote was a bit messy, for which I apologise. I hope this clears up any confusion.Bob O'H_{July 9, 2021
July
07
Jul
9
09
2021
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply