On one of the Christian forums I frequent, I have gotten into a debate with a flat earther. I refuse to debate a conspiracy theory, but I have challenged his assertion that "astronomy is not a science because you cannot manipulate/experiment with the observed objects." To him, astronomy as a scientific endeavor cannot proceed beyond the "hypothesis" phase, and thus cannot be described as a real science.

wikipedia Wrote:Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process

I have referenced several sources (like the one above) that name astronomy as a science and show how it conforms to scientific method abstractly. What I would like is help finding one or two practical examples of the "experimentation" process as it exists in astronomy.

Thanks.

(January 15, 2018 at 12:29 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: On one of the Christian forums I frequent, I have gotten into a debate with a flat earther. I refuse to debate a conspiracy theory, but I have challenged his assertion that "astronomy is not a science because you cannot manipulate/experiment with the observed objects." To him, astronomy as a scientific endeavor cannot proceed beyond the "hypothesis" phase, and thus cannot be described as a real science.

wikipedia Wrote:Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process

I have referenced several sources (like the one above) that name astronomy as a science and show how it conforms to scientific method abstractly. What I would like is help finding one or two practical examples of the "experimentation" process as it exists in astronomy.

Thanks.

One can lead a horse to water, but may not necessarily be able to make it drink. I think that you are wasting your time, just as if a YEC came in here all deluded and you tried to educate him/her about the age of the universe. I gave up arguing with the religious a long time ago. Your being right means absolute dick to these people. Flat Earthers are no different in this regard. The difference between you and that ignoramus is your willingness to investigate a claim's validity for yourself. The evidence for people's bovine, placid non-concern about physical reality is, sadly, all around you. FWIW, I'm happy to see that there are people who will engage them, because I am, frankly, tired of dealing with that lunacy. I had my turn at the wheel, I think is the best description. I doubt that I convinced a single one of them. They need to think and analyze for themselves, else they will forever remain in their cocoons.

Quote: Flat Earthers are no different in this regard.

Actually they are even stupider than average.

(January 15, 2018 at 12:29 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: On one of the Christian forums I frequent, I have gotten into a debate with a flat earther. I refuse to debate a conspiracy theory, but I have challenged his assertion that "astronomy is not a science because you cannot manipulate/experiment with the observed objects." To him, astronomy as a scientific endeavor cannot proceed beyond the "hypothesis" phase, and thus cannot be described as a real science.

wikipedia Wrote:Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Process

I have referenced several sources (like the one above) that name astronomy as a science and show how it conforms to scientific method abstractly. What I would like is help finding one or two practical examples of the "experimentation" process as it exists in astronomy.

Thanks.

Not sure exactly what you are looking for, but i was watching a documentary on the voyager missions and how they worked out the slingshot method to catapult them to planets they wanted them to observe. The mathematics involved was impressive and had it been wrong they of course would not have made it. Effectively they were experimental missions that worked.

They applied the math to the observations they had already made of orbits, so they would know exactly where the planets would be etc. It may be worth looking into things like that.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/acro...uk-science

^just an interesting article i was reading

Also worth mentioning is the study of planets in other solar systems (as a flat earther not sure he believes they exist) he may eventually have to resort to ''it's the devil making these things happen'' or something !!

So, reading between the lines, are you saying you want all Christians killed?

It's a challenge, bur I think I'm equal to the task.

It will be expensive, though.

(January 15, 2018 at 1:07 am)Fireball Wrote: One can lead a horse to water, but may not necessarily be able to make it drink. I think that you are wasting your time, just as if a YEC came in here all deluded and you tried to educate him/her about the age of the universe. I gave up arguing with the religious a long time ago. Your being right means absolute dick to these people. Flat Earthers are no different in this regard. The difference between you and that ignoramus is your willingness to investigate a claim's validity for yourself. The evidence for people's bovine, placid non-concern about physical reality is, sadly, all around you. FWIW, I'm happy to see that there are people who will engage them, because I am, frankly, tired of dealing with that lunacy. I had my turn at the wheel, I think is the best description. I doubt that I convinced a single one of them. They need to think and analyze for themselves, else they will forever remain in their cocoons.

True enough. I don't debate to change people's minds though--more so to keep my own skills sharp and (in most cases, not this one) challenge my own worldview.

Keep in mind, I'm not debating the flatness of the earth with this loon... just that astronomy follows the scientific method. In the process of challenging his position I will more than likely learn something about astronomy--in fact, I already have. So it's worthwhile for me in that regard.

But thanks for trying to warn me away from potential frustration, bud.

---

(January 15, 2018 at 1:24 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: So, reading between the lines, are you saying you want all Christians killed?

It's a challenge, bur I think I'm equal to the task.

It will be expensive, though.

Well what I really wanted was John the Baptist's head on a platter but someone already beat me to it. I guess it was someone with a penchant for decapitation (looks suspiciously in your direction).

But, yeah, since I can't have that, I guess I'll try to refute this flat earth dickhead.

Obviously we build telescopes, sattelites, radio telescopes, Large Hadron Colliders and other expensive toys to do something other than make empirical observations.

What is his precise objection regarding the matter? Absent that, I wouldn't bother. "Astronomy isn't science hurr durr" is vacuous.

(January 15, 2018 at 1:38 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: What is his precise objection regarding the matter?  

flat earth dickhead Wrote:Astronomy isn't Science:
The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method. 
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis".
Post ONE Formal Scientific Hypothesis in the History of astronomy...?  OR
Show how you can have "Science" without Scientific Hypotheses...?
"If it doesn't agree with EXPERIMENT, it's WRONG. In that simple statement is the KEY to SCIENCE".
Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics); The Essence Of Science In 60 Seconds.
"The scientific method REQUIRES that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a VALID description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "EXPERIMENT is Supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
Uh Ohh...
"Unlike the other sciences, astronomy is ENTIRELY OBSERVATIONAL. You CANNOT run EXPERIMENTS on things. You cannot manipulate the objects to see how they work."
http://www.astronomynotes.com/starprop/s2.htm
Crocheting is more "Scientific" than astronomy. 
By the mere fact that I had to explain this to you, is a Screaming Testimony that you wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on your head, spun around, and whistled dixie.

Here it is, in all its glory. I think he's trying to intimidate me intellectually, but I know how to spot pretentious drivel when I see it. If I prepare a succinct argument, I can knock this guy down a peg.

His notion of what constitutes an experiment is entirely rooted in fiction.

LOL @ "astronomy isn't science"

Did he mean "astrology"? Lol.