4 ms·
Sure, but we aren't holding to this form of biological geocentrism for no reason. We've never seen any definite proof of life on any other planets. Given that s
by TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
Sure, but we aren't holding to this form of biological geocentrism for no reason. We've never seen any definite proof of life on any other planets. Given that science is an evidence-based methodology, it makes sense that we would assume Earth-based life is the only model of life until proven otherwise.
- jackmott 9y agoif we wanted to be perfect logicians we would assume neither but believe the geocentric case to be a likely possibility.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y agoIf we want to be perfect logicians, then there is no reality or absolute truth in anything, but that's just a bit pedantic IMO ;) Conclusions at some point need to be made to progress.
- mikeash 9y agoWanting to be perfect logicians is an oxymoron, as there is no perfectly logical reason to want to be one!
- triangleman 9y agoHi jackmott FYI you are "hellbanned" which means nobody can see your comments. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The mods on this site are overly strict and quick to employ such a harsh tactic, IMO.
- tgb 9y agoIt's worth noting that geocentrism wasn't held onto for no reason either. At least the ancient Greeks had solid logical reasons for believing it: if the Earth orbited the sun, then there would be parallax visible between the stars since the Earth's position among the stars is changing throughout the year. Yet, there is none. Therefore the Earth is fixed in space. The error of course is that the stars are really unimaginably far away and hence there is parallax but it's practically indiscernible. The Greeks thought the stars being that far away was the less likely answer to the apparent lack of parallax than the Earth simply being the center of the solar system.