By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
A “baloney detection kit” courtesy of Carl Sagen on 00:46 - Dec 21 by XYZ
A science love-song, love it!
Moray himself is a low-key genius. Check out his first album 'Sweet England'. It offers up some of the most radical treatments of trad folk songs since 'Liege and Lief'.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
A “baloney detection kit” courtesy of Carl Sagen on 00:48 - Dec 21 by BlueBadger
Moray himself is a low-key genius. Check out his first album 'Sweet England'. It offers up some of the most radical treatments of trad folk songs since 'Liege and Lief'.
Cheers. Will have a listen, although I'm far from qualified to express a view beyond "yeah, I like that".
0
A “baloney detection kit” courtesy of Carl Sagen on 09:43 - Dec 21 with 658 views
The problem with applying micro-scientific methods to larger or more speculative theories is that the equipment does not exist to test them and/or that prevailing assumptions may be wrong. It can actually hinder scientific progress as people are deterred from going out on a theoretical limb, fruitful or otherwise.
Scientists use unproven assumptions all the time. Constants and particles are invented to fill holes in equations, placeholders to make things work until we can find out what is really going on. Mathematicians are happy to work in dimensions considerably beyond the normal three. Effects are modelled in ways which are contrived, even paradoxical (e.g. the wave-particle duality of light).
Without people thinking outside the box, we are forever trapped inside it.
Sagan was a brilliant thinker, but I feel he was sometimes guilty of swinging too far into the ultra-sceptic position which was very trendy at the time.
A “baloney detection kit” courtesy of Carl Sagen on 09:43 - Dec 21 by Guthrum
The problem with applying micro-scientific methods to larger or more speculative theories is that the equipment does not exist to test them and/or that prevailing assumptions may be wrong. It can actually hinder scientific progress as people are deterred from going out on a theoretical limb, fruitful or otherwise.
Scientists use unproven assumptions all the time. Constants and particles are invented to fill holes in equations, placeholders to make things work until we can find out what is really going on. Mathematicians are happy to work in dimensions considerably beyond the normal three. Effects are modelled in ways which are contrived, even paradoxical (e.g. the wave-particle duality of light).
Without people thinking outside the box, we are forever trapped inside it.
Sagan was a brilliant thinker, but I feel he was sometimes guilty of swinging too far into the ultra-sceptic position which was very trendy at the time.
Absolutely. He was clearly a very clever and very good in his field. "Sagan maintained that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to prove or disprove and that the only conceivable scientific discovery that could challenge it would be an infinitely old universe."
However, I think he failed some of his own principles to the evidence for Christianity.
It is interesting how much variation there is among scientists when it comes to religious belief.
The problem with that argument is that it also works if the Sun is a low-altitude point source. If it were, say, just a hundred miles in altitude and parked directly over Syene, the difference in shadows would still occur even with a flat Earth. Eratosthenes made the assumption that the Sun was far away and therefore its light rays were arriving effectively parallel.
His assumption was correct, but unproveable at the time, thus going against Sagan's own principle.
A “baloney detection kit” courtesy of Carl Sagen on 11:16 - Dec 21 by Guthrum
The problem with that argument is that it also works if the Sun is a low-altitude point source. If it were, say, just a hundred miles in altitude and parked directly over Syene, the difference in shadows would still occur even with a flat Earth. Eratosthenes made the assumption that the Sun was far away and therefore its light rays were arriving effectively parallel.
His assumption was correct, but unproveable at the time, thus going against Sagan's own principle.
But Eratosthenes had other information that indicated that the Sun wasn't a low altitude point source, ie, he already knew about the analemma, which can't happen if the Earth is flat....
You haven't been watching flat earth videos have you Guthers, or am I due a woosh? :-)
[Post edited 21 Dec 2021 15:08]
Just one small problem; sell their houses to who, Ben? Fcking Aquaman?
A “baloney detection kit” courtesy of Carl Sagen on 11:16 - Dec 21 by Guthrum
The problem with that argument is that it also works if the Sun is a low-altitude point source. If it were, say, just a hundred miles in altitude and parked directly over Syene, the difference in shadows would still occur even with a flat Earth. Eratosthenes made the assumption that the Sun was far away and therefore its light rays were arriving effectively parallel.
His assumption was correct, but unproveable at the time, thus going against Sagan's own principle.
I get the feeling the video clip is not the complete explanation. It doesn't explain how they were able to confidently measure the shadows at both sites simultaneously (I guess there was an accurate reliable way of telling the same time).
It is very interesting to see how accurate some things were measured before access to modern technology.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
