Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: donh
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

No, that's what Occam's razor is, by definition. Your opinion may be that Occam's razor is useless, but that's not an opinion shared by most people in the scientific community.

Kepler's model is not "infinitely superior to Ptolemy's" any more than Einsteinian mechanics are infinitely superior to Newtonian mechanics.

Einstein's mechanics are infinitely superior to Newton's. Try using Newton's formulas to figure out what would happen to the trajectory of a neutron star passing by a black hole at 0.85c.

Likewise, Ptolemy isn't going to be of much help when you see a new asteroid in the viewfinder and want to predict the path it will take.

Unlike ancient astronomy, Modern astronomy totally fails to explain to individual humans what the subtle interactions of the stars predict for their personal lives.

And astrology does explain these things? Accurately?

1,098 posted on 09/23/2005 3:18:16 PM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1097 | View Replies ]


To: inquest
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

No, that's what Occam's razor is, by definition. Your opinion may be that Occam's razor is useless, but that's not an opinion shared by most people in the scientific community.

I expect most scientists would give a positive review of microscopes and karnaugh maps--that doesn't make microscopes or karnaugh maps infallible tools of first resort for selecting between alternative scientific theories.

Einstein's mechanics are infinitely superior to Newton's.

Then why, pray tell, do we still employ Newton's laws for most of our physics-related tasks?

Try using Newton's formulas to figure out what would happen to the trajectory of a neutron star passing by a black hole at 0.85c.

Newton was never faced with this case, just as Ptolomaic mariners were never faced with calculating the perihelion of Mercury. For tasks they were faced with, Occam's razor would eliminate the modern replacements for both theories, on account of their useless extra calculation complexity.

Unlike ancient astronomy, Modern astronomy totally fails to explain to individual humans what the subtle interactions of the stars predict for their personal lives.

And astrology does explain these things? Accurately?

Prove it won't--in a few months, when the stars begin to line up properly. Think you can do so without making astrology a subject of serious scientific inquiry? Once you start, of course, I expect you to label all the astronomy books with a small warning label, and teach astrology in astronomy classrooms for one hour per semester.

Be at one with his noodly appendage, grasshopper.

1,102 posted on 09/23/2005 7:24:10 PM PDT by donh (A is </a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1098 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson