Is it true that the only reason Copernicus is preferred to Ptolemy (i.e. the heliocentric theory over the geocentric) is that it makes the math a lot simpler? Is there any empirical proof that the earth goes around the sun, apart from Ockham's razor? (I.e. the simplest explanation, accounting for the relevant facts, is the preferred one.)
2007-04-27
10:23:46
·
7 answers
·
asked by
2kool4u
5
in
Arts & Humanities
➔ Philosophy
Well, there is empirical proof that the earth isn't flat. You can see a ship disappear and reappear over the horizon, for example. I asked this question in the science section as well and got some interesting answers. I've also filled in the rationale, i.e. on the difference between fact and theory. BTW I am neither a Creationist nor a geocentrist, just someone interested in asking questions to clarify things for myself.
2007-04-27
10:44:06 ·
update #1
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist either. And if you went up in a spaceship, wouldn't the perception of the earth orbiting the sun depend on your preconceived mindset? Wouldn't it be just as easy to conclude that the sun was orbiting the earth?
2007-04-27
11:01:13 ·
update #2
I posted the same question on philosophy and science. The replies on science were, for the most part, polite and thoughtful. The replies on philosophy are...below. I don't know what this says, if anything.
2007-04-27
11:44:26 ·
update #3
I would have thought that the basic issue--the difference between a fact and a theory--was of some passing interest to anyone interested in philosophy.
2007-04-27
11:50:56 ·
update #4