What is the biggest ripoff?

But you require a herd to which you are contrary. Is the sole basis of your belief: "Most people think this, so they must be wrong"?

Quote: Calder

But you require a herd to which you are contrary. Is the sole basis of your belief: "Most people think this, so they must be wrong"?

Pretty much, yes. Of course, that doesn't apply to things that are patently obvious, and irrefutable, such as "the sun rises in the east" or, "if you drop a concrete block on an egg, the egg will break". I referred only to "beliefs".

So the majority of things that people think are true, are, in fact, true. But the majority of the things that they BELIEVE are true, are wrong.

Fair enough. Though for a long time it was believed the sun rose in the east because it revolved around the earth. That one was irrefutable, too.

Quote: mkl654321

...given that human beings are fundamentally irrational, and more importantly, unaware that they are irrational,

Who stands apart from humanity to determine the irrationality of a belief?

Quote: Calder

Fair enough. Though for a long time it was believed the sun rose in the east because it revolved around the earth. That one was irrefutable, too.


Who stands apart from humanity to determine the irrationality of a belief?

You don't need to "stand apart" from humanity to determine if something's irrational. Human beings are perfectly capable of thinking rationally if they choose to. But first, they have to realize that their thinking is irrational; then, they have to have the desire to correct that. Much of human irrationality consists of reinforcing rather than repudiating irrational thought--see "confirmation bias", for example. Then there is the tendency to defend a belief simply because one has professed it in the past. Quite frankly, our cognitive processes aren't designed for, and can't handle, today's modern, complex world.

Quote: Calder

Fair enough. Though for a long time it was believed the sun rose in the east because it revolved around the earth. That one was irrefutable, too.

That wasn't irrefutable--in fact, the evidence was strongly in favor of the heliocentric model from the time of the Greeks. The trouble was, theology (in its various forms) contradicted that model. So the choice had to be made--was the theology wrong, or was the science wrong? Guess which one mankind chose!

Ptolemy, considered an authority well up to Galileo's day, couldn't reconcile his observations (which strongly suggested the heliocentric model) with the prevailing theology (which said the hell with all that, the sun revolves around the earth). So he invented "deferents and epicycles", a nonsensical model that said that all the planets periodically stopped, turned around, did a do-si-do, bowed to the celestial sphere, and then resumed their original courses. Anything rather than say that the prevailing religion was wrong!

Okay. But rationally, the evidence supported the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. That wasn't irrational, it was wrong. Irrationality was a label imposed upon it after the fact. It was proven wrong once facts were available and introduced to disprove it.

Quote: mkl654321

Much of human irrationality consists of reinforcing rather than repudiating irrational thought

I don't agree here. Someone still needs to determine or define what is rational.

Quote: mkl654321

Quite frankly, our cognitive processes aren't designed for, and can't handle, today's modern, complex world.

I can't refute this. But again, it seems to require someone to stand apart to determine what cognitive processes we can or cannot handle. A referee?

Our responses are starting to mix.

By most accounts, Ptolemy was a pretty sharp guy. His epicycles weren't nonsensical, they were wrong. He tried to make his model match observation, and he got it wrong. At which "theology" do you lay that error?

Quote: Calder

Okay. But rationally, the evidence supported the idea that the sun revolved around the earth. That wasn't irrational, it was wrong. Irrationality was a label imposed upon it after the fact. It was proven wrong once facts were available and introduced to disprove it.


I don't agree here. Someone still needs to determine or define what is rational.


I can't refute this. But again, it seems to require someone to stand apart to determine what cognitive processes we can or cannot handle. A referee?

You're not getting what I'm saying. The facts were available from the days of the ancient Greeks. The evidence did NOT support the geocentric model. The phenomenon of "retrograde motion" of the planets could NOT be reconciled with that model. That's why Ptolemy cooked up his bizarre counter-model of epicycles and deferents. The rational thing would have been to conclude that the observations refuted the geocentric model. The irrational thing was to conclude that the theology must have been right no matter what.

Rationality exists independent of human thought. What is true is true even if every human being on earth thinks otherwise.

The referee can be other humans who use the scientific method. It isn't difficult to tell if something is real or not.

Quote: Calder

Our responses are starting to mix.

By most accounts, Ptolemy was a pretty sharp guy. His epicycles weren't nonsensical, they were wrong. He tried to make his model match observation, and he got it wrong. At which "theology" do you lay that error?

If he'd been able to resist the pull of the dominant theology, he would have realized that the evidence supported the heliocentric model. He chose the worse of two alternative trains of thought:

1. Accept the evidence and the conclusion it created, and reject the theology.
2. Accept the theology, and try to twist the evidence to support the theology.

The heliocentric model was far simpler, and far more in accordance with the evidence, than the geocentric model. But Ptolemy's theology (and that of thousands after him) prevented him from choosing the much simpler and therefore far more likely theory. A perfect example of how irrationality dominates coherent thought.

I get what you're saying. Ptolemy was incorrect, though I'd not characterize it as bizarre. And the geocentric model persisted for hundreds of years. Again, I'd not characterize this as irrational, just wrong.

You repeat that it was theology that was responsible for it's persistence, but it's not like the Pope was pushing Ptolemy in the second century.

Again, our responses (or at least mine) are lagging a bit.

I see nothing "incoherent" in his theory, though it was certainly incorrect.

Quote: mkl654321

1. Accept the evidence and the conclusion it created, and reject the theology.
2. Accept the theology, and try to twist the evidence to support the theology.

To what theology, or authority, do you refer?

Ultimately, what I find in your arguments is the smug arrogance of hindsight. "Those pinheaded Greeks, what were they thinking?"

You seem eager to put all error at the foot of theology, when I'm willing to simply accept error as error: Sometimes They got it wrong. The scientific method, born of western thought, is accepting, even welcoming, of error.

One Egyptian scholar proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd or 4th century BC but it was lost in the Great Fire of Alexandria (many scientific advances were lost there)

Ptolemy's Almagest proposed a detailed geocentric model of the universe. Its calculations held up in time for 15 centuries, and was accepted around the world, not just in the Roman Empire. No one even developed a heliocentric model until Copernicus. The math was not developed to support it and quite frankly, no one thought of it except as a philosophical issue. Ptolemy did not even consider a heliocentric model. Other cultures (Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern) dabbled in the heliocentric model but no one came up with anything that was more accurate than Ptolemy. Theology had little to do with it. There was no reason NOT TO BELIEVE that the earth was not at the center of the universe, nor were there instruments accurate enough or observations available to prove otherwise.

Even Copernicus' model (published in 1543) was also wrong (he proposed seven perfect spheres representing the six planets and the stars rotating around the Sun) -- he also had needed epicycles that represented corrections based on the fact that the orbits of these planets are not circular (they are elliptical). It was true that Copernicus sought (and received) the blessing of the Catholic church before he published his work but reportedly the fear of publishing his work was due to general ridicule rather than admonishment from the church.

With the advent of the telescope pioneered by Galileo, Kepler's theories supported by Brahe's observations, and Newton's laws (which could verify Kepler), Renaissance astronomy was born. It wasn't until Bessel 170 years ago that showed that stars are much further away than a fixed point due to parallax. With more powerful telescopes came confirmation that other galaxies existed and led to today's beliefs that the sun is somewhere on the outer arm of the Milky Way.

We are arrogant enough to believe that we are at the frontiers of science. Today's physicists have not married the forces together to create a "theory of everything" to explain "the big bang". Theoretical physicists have not made any progress in almost 40 years except to come up with more theories, none of which have been confirmed through experiments. Who knows, maybe they'll discover Jesus!!!

We are just at a point in our journey, just like Aristotle was 2 millennium ago, just like Copernicus was 500 years ago, just like Einstein was 100 years ago. We've come a long way, but we still have a long, long way to go.

Quote: boymimbo

Who knows, maybe they'll discover Jesus!!!

Found Him. Take a look at The Man From Earth on Netflix.

Quote: Calder

Ultimately, what I find in your arguments is the smug arrogance of hindsight. "Those pinheaded Greeks, what were they thinking?"

You seem eager to put all error at the foot of theology, when I'm willing to simply accept error as error: Sometimes They got it wrong. The scientific method, born of western thought, is accepting, even welcoming, of error.

Nonsense, you're misconstruing my argument. The Greeks were pioneering astronomers. They were also pioneers of rational thought. Which makes it all the more sad that thay had the tools to figure out the nature of the solar system, but then garbaged it all up.

Their prevailing theology involved the "heavenly spheres", and the pantheon of gods, and could not be reconciled with their observations. So the choice was to discard the science or discard the theology, and they chose wrong.

Quote: boymimbo

One Egyptian scholar proposed a heliocentric model in the 3rd or 4th century BC but it was lost in the Great Fire of Alexandria (many scientific advances were lost there)

Ptolemy's Almagest proposed a detailed geocentric model of the universe. Its calculations held up in time for 15 centuries, and was accepted around the world, not just in the Roman Empire. No one even developed a heliocentric model until Copernicus..

The apparent retrograde motion of the planets refuted the geocentric theory, and that motion was well documented and observed even in Ptolemy's time. The evidence was there; the conclusion was obvious.

Ptolemy's "epicycles and deferents" explanation of retrograde motion assumed that the planets all stopped in their orbits from time to time, did a backflip, and then kept on going. Even he must have realized that it was a nonsensical model--but he HAD to come up with a theory that reconciled the reality of his observations and the lunacy of his culture's theology. Of course, the result was a miserable and ludicrous hash.

To say that no one developed a heliocentric model until Copernicus is almost certainly incorrect, and in any case beggars the point. For much of those 15 centuries, to suggest the heliocentric model was to risk violent death. The Church did an excellent job of suppressing such heretical utterances. That is partly why Ptolemy's models persisted for so long--no one dared express any contradictory, heretical thoughts. The Church froze human reason in place for centuries.

How does:

Quote: Calder

Ultimately, what I find in your arguments is the smug arrogance of hindsight. "Those pinheaded Greeks, what were they thinking?"

Contradict:

Quote: mkl654321

The Greeks were pioneering astronomers. They were also pioneers of rational thought. Which makes it all the more sad that thay had the tools to figure out the nature of the solar system, but then garbaged it all up.

Quote: mkl654321

Their prevailing theology involved the "heavenly spheres", and the pantheon of gods, and could not be reconciled with their observations. So the choice was to discard the science or discard the theology, and they chose wrong.

Really? Belief in Zeus, Hera, and the rest of the gang was the problem?

Quote: mkl654321

The apparent retrograde motion of the planets refuted the geocentric theory, and that motion was well documented and observed even in Ptolemy's time. The evidence was there; the conclusion was obvious.

Again, I think this statement is made with the smug confidence born of two millenia of hindsight.

Quote: mkl654321

Even he must have realized that it was a nonsensical model--but he HAD to come up with a theory that reconciled the reality of his observations and the lunacy of his culture's theology.

I don't have the luxury of being in Ptolemy's head.

Quote: mkl654321

To say that no one developed a heliocentric model until Copernicus is almost certainly incorrect

Perhaps, though if I made the point I'm confident you'd ask for some type of citation.

The Ptolemaic System predated any ability of the Church to systematically suppress it.

Of course the retrograde motion of the planets refuted the geocentric theory. The epicycles explained that. As I said, other cultures who were not affected by the church did not come up with anything better than Ptolemy. Instruments were simply not available to confirm anything differently. While it may seem idiotic to you to believe that "it was obvious", with the instruments and simple-mindedness of the day, Ptolemy's great book was accepted as "gospel" for 15 centuries.

Did the church quash scientific advances? Absolutely. But given that other cultures could not come up with anything better in 15 centuries suggest that the lack of instrumentation and the inability to explain the planetary motions in a heliocentric model was not mathematically plausible at the time.

Copernicus' theories were quickly backed up with observations he could get from better instrumentation. Galileo's telescopic observations of moons revolving around Jupiter and Mercury and Venus showing phases only supported Copernicus.

Quote: Calder

Again, I think this statement is made with the smug confidence born of two millenia of hindsight.


I don't have the luxury of being in Ptolemy's head.


Perhaps, though if I made the point I'm confident you'd ask for some type of citation.

The Ptolemaic System predated any ability of the Church to systematically suppress it.

Nope. The heliocentric model would have been obvious to anyone who stood on a hilltop and looked into the night sky. Even in 500 B.C. That's assuming, of course, no theology to create preconceived notions.

You can have that luxury by reading his writings.

Uh, no, my point was that no such written records exist, because to write down anything that contradicted the Ptolemaic model was to risk death. So I doubt that the reason no writings from the period that supported the heliocentric model exist is that no one in those 1500 years thought of it.

Of course, the Ptolemaic model predated Christianity, but first Greek, then Christian theology supported it, and suppressed the heliocentric model. However, in Ptolemy's case, it wasn't so much an institution repressing his thought, as his inability to break free from his own theology.

Quote: mkl654321

The heliocentric model would have been obvious to anyone who stood on a hilltop and looked into the night sky.

Wow. Where were you when humanity needed you?

Quote: mkl654321

Nope. The heliocentric model would have been obvious to anyone who stood on a hilltop and looked into the night sky.

Well, If I did it now It still wouldnt be obvious to me. Maybe because it doesnt matter to me if the sun goes round the moon or even if the earth is flat.

Shame on me I suppose.

Quote: Calder

Wow. Where were you when humanity needed you?

2500 years ago, I would probably have been browbeaten by the same theology, and my thinking would have been similarly muddled. I'm very lucky to have been born in the only few decades (so far) that religious belief was not mandatory, and furthermore, to have been allowed the intellectual freedom to use logic and not someone else's beliefs in trying to evaluate the nature of the world.

I'm not anything special in terms of ability to see the world--I'm more like one of the very few people in the world who was lucky enough to escape being poisoned. We all have the potential to think rationally--but there are so many pressures around us to think irrationally. Not only that, we have to fight our inherent cognitive biases. The odds are against us.

Your false modesty is unconvincing.

My own thought is that standing on a hilltop TODAY without instruments, there is absolutely no proof that our solar system is heliocentric. It would be very difficult with the math that they had 2,000 years ago to comprehend a heliocentric model. Why?

You would first have to come up with the fact that you are rotating, and not that things are rotating around you. You would then have to come up with the fact that you are revolving around the sun and that you are on a planet. There was absolutely no evidence of that because you never felt yourself moving.

Then you would have to reconcile the fact that there are five objects in the sky (six including the moon) that are quite different than anything else you see, and that these objects were special somehow. However, there were other special objects (comets) that appeared as well as meteor showers which would be absolutely mystical (but came at the same time of year) (since there was no notion of an atmosphere). You would notice that Mercury hovered closed to the Sun and Venus strayed further away, while Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were all over the place along the ecliptic.

I believe that the best one could do 2000 years ago is chart the planets against the fixed stars and come up with patterns based on a geocentric universe -- similar to Ptolemy.

Quote: boymimbo

My own thought is that standing on a hilltop TODAY without instruments, there is absolutely no proof that our solar system is heliocentric. It would be very difficult with the math that they had 2,000 years ago to comprehend a heliocentric model. Why?

You would first have to come up with the fact that you are rotating, and not that things are rotating around you. You would then have to come up with the fact that you are revolving around the sun and that you are on a planet. There was absolutely no evidence of that because you never felt yourself moving.

Then you would have to reconcile the fact that there are five objects in the sky (six including the moon) that are quite different than anything else you see, and that these objects were special somehow. However, there were other special objects (comets) that appeared as well as meteor showers which would be absolutely mystical (but came at the same time of year) (since there was no notion of an atmosphere). You would notice that Mercury hovered closed to the Sun and Venus strayed further away, while Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were all over the place along the ecliptic.

I believe that the best one could do 2000 years ago is chart the planets against the fixed stars and come up with patterns based on a geocentric universe -- similar to Ptolemy.

But why would the heliocentric model be so counterintuitive? It explained everything a person at that time could have seen happening in the night sky. Ptolemy could not possibly have been unaware of how well it explained everything he saw--including the planets' retrograde motion, which was easily explainable in a heliocentric model but which he struggled mightly to reconcile with the geocentric model. He charted no less than EIGHTY-TWO nonexistent "epicycles and deferents" of the outer planets' motions, and still couldn't reconcile all of his observations.

That observed retrograde motion is the key. If the earth were the center of a rotating universe, then the planets presumably orbiting it could not exhibit apparent retrograde motion. Therefore, something else was going on. The planets also observed rotational behavior relative to the sun. It wasn't much of a leap of logic--Copernicus made it, after all--once you posited the theory that the geocentric model could not be correct.

As far as standing on a hilltop goes, observing the retrograde motion of Mars or Jupiter--easily visible in an unpolluted night sky--would be enough to make any thinking person, even someone only equipped with the scientific tools of 500 BC, realize that the geocentric model must be wrong.

Quote: mkl654321

As far as standing on a hilltop goes, observing the retrograde motion of Mars or Jupiter--easily visible in an unpolluted night sky--would be enough to make any thinking person, even someone only equipped with the scientific tools of 500 BC, realize that the geocentric model must be wrong.

Well, seems to me we've come as far as we can. I'll repeat, if only we had mkl to nudge Ptolemy from that hilltop, we'd have been on the moon in 1965.

Quote: Calder

Well, seems to me we've come as far as we can. I'll repeat, if only we had mkl to nudge Ptolemy from that hilltop, we'd have been on the moon in 1965.

I don't know why you persist in making that stupidly sarcastic statement. Maybe it's because you don't like my saying that theology subverted science for 1500+ years. Ptolemy made the proper observations, and drew the proper conclusion. Then he talked himself out of it. The only service I could have done Ptolemy would have been to strangle all the priests. Even that might not have done the trick.

Quote: AZDuffman

And, BTW, no one ever bought a gallon of gasoline they did not want.

Wife: "Honey, I know it's 100 degrees out, but can you mow the lawn and 'til the garden?" or "Honey, I know it's 15 below but can you snowblow the drive and the walk?"

I've bought plenty of gas I didn't want and hereby declare your statement false!

J/K AZ, just thought I'd be, ahem, 'funny' and lighten this place up a bit. Back to your regularly scheduled rant about religion/sex/politics....

There are plenty of things that seem intuitive to us today because it's obvious. One of the jokes we made in our Physics class is "F=ma. It's obvious!!!". Yet one of our exercises was to prove Newton's laws of motions. High school science spends a great deal of time devising experiments to prove that F=ma. University students spend a great deal of time figuring out why E=mc squared. Today, it's just obvious.

It was a leap of logic. It took the entire world 1,500 years to come up with something better, while there were millions of people looking up in the night sky wondering why that bright red thing was moving in a different direction. Not one of them postulated that the earth was not in the center. Maybe many of them did, but weren't smart enough to come up with their own heliocentric model. I'll postulate that certainly advances in scientific knowledge were thwarted by the dark ages, but I'll also state that very few people in the 1500 years between Ptolemy and Copernicus came up with a model.