2 ms·

> They were right eventually, but they were very controversial and their ideas started very strong debates. They weren't right eventually. They were always rig

by qiskit 4y ago

> They were right eventually, but they were very controversial and their ideas started very strong debates. They weren't right eventually. They were always right. Are you claiming copernicus was wrong and the sun was circling the earth? They were right because of the evidence, not because of the debate and consensus. Heliocentrism didn't end because there was a debate and a vote. It ended because of the evidence. Arts/humanities work via debate/consensus/etc. Science works by tests/experimentation/evidence/empiricism.

xcambar 4y ago
I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. So anyone in that timeframe were looking at the state of science with their best mind and rightfully questioned "who's right? Geocentrism or heliocentrism?". And there were debates. To know what eventually came out of it is just a privilege of our time. Future times will have the privilege of looking down to 2022 and look at our controversies with the confidence of those that know. This is why I'm convinced that science moves forward with debates and consensus. Just as general relativity made consensus year after year, if you want a modern example.
- qiskit 4y ago
  > I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. That's because the telescope hadn't even been invented yet. And no scientific evidence could be gathered, no hypothesis could be tested, etc. The discovery of the telescope and the ability to find other planets and track their orbits is what ultimately undid heliocentrism. Not consensus. > So anyone in that timeframe were looking at the state of science with their best mind and rightfully questioned "who's right? Geocentrism or heliocentrism?". And there were debates. Yes. But what separates humanities from science is the debate gets settled by empirical evidence. Otherwise we'd debate forever and it'll be a matter of consensus. > Just as general relativity made consensus year after year, if you want a modern example. Because of the observed evidence. Not consensus. There seems to be a confusion here. In humanities, the consensus makes the theory. In science, the evidence makes the consensus. A group of nazi historians will say the US was the bad guys and germany was the good guys. A group of US historians will say the US was the good guy and germany was the bad guy. The narrative/"truth"/history entirely depends on consensus. Who is voting. That's not how science works. The experiment/data is what's important and the consensus follows from it. Doesn't matter who is voting. Since you believe history is science, then historians are scientists?

by qiskit 4y ago

xcambar 4y ago

I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. So anyone in that timeframe were looking at the state of science with their best mind and rightfully questioned "who's right? Geocentrism or heliocentrism?". And there were debates. To know what eventually came out of it is just a privilege of our time. Future times will have the privilege of looking down to 2022 and look at our controversies with the confidence of those that know. This is why I'm convinced that science moves forward with debates and consensus. Just as general relativity made consensus year after year, if you want a modern example.

qiskit 4y ago
> I'm saying that Copernicus wrote _de revolutionibus_ in 1543 and its contents were globally accepted not before around the 1700s. That's because the telescope hadn't even been invented yet. And no scientific evidence could be gathered, no hypothesis could be tested, etc. The discovery of the telescope and the ability to find other planets and track their orbits is what ultimately undid heliocentrism. Not consensus. > So anyone in that timeframe were looking at the state of science with their best mind and rightfully questioned "who's right? Geocentrism or heliocentrism?". And there were debates. Yes. But what separates humanities from science is the debate gets settled by empirical evidence. Otherwise we'd debate forever and it'll be a matter of consensus. > Just as general relativity made consensus year after year, if you want a modern example. Because of the observed evidence. Not consensus. There seems to be a confusion here. In humanities, the consensus makes the theory. In science, the evidence makes the consensus. A group of nazi historians will say the US was the bad guys and germany was the good guys. A group of US historians will say the US was the good guy and germany was the bad guy. The narrative/"truth"/history entirely depends on consensus. Who is voting. That's not how science works. The experiment/data is what's important and the consensus follows from it. Doesn't matter who is voting. Since you believe history is science, then historians are scientists?