(December 4, 2016 at 2:28 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I was listening to a podcasts the other day, which seems relevant to this conversation. The caller was a geocentrist, and further believed that the earth was stationary (does not rotate on an axis). The hosts quickly pointed out, the observations made, which easily disprove this including the observation from space of the earths rotation, and the fact that satellites in a synchronous orbit need to have their time calibrated for the difference in speed because of their greater orbit.
The caller immediately dismissed this; similarly to what I see here, as anecdotes, and having to believe what others tell you. Now to me, he is denying the evidence, based on what their a priori knowledge states (I would say that this man, couldn't be reasoned with). Do you think that he was correct in his method?
Hmmm.
In relativistic terms, the man is right. From the perspective of someone on Earth, everything revolves around it. . . but in extraordinarily complex ways, mathematically speaking. And we still think this way-- for example, we still have charts for when the sun "rises" at different places at different times of year. However, if he ever wants to do space travel, he's going to find the math totally unworkable. He will never be able to generalize his observations into simple, pragmatic principles, and will instead be stuck in a world of crazy charts and graphs which try desperately to map out the details of myriad bodies as they dance around the Earth.
When the evidence drives the conclusions, one is in my opinion forming conclusions correctly. When the evidence does not FIT the conclusions, especially new evidence, one must adapt the conclusions. Any time someone must cover his ears and say "La la la la, I can't hear you!" in order to maintain his world view, then he has decided that the efficiency of maintaining his current world view (no heart searching, no letting go of unworkable ideas, etc.) is more important than truth.
