The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

Astronomy has always had both a predictive side and an interpretative side with the latter covering hypothesis while the former was concerned with providing a schedule of astronomical events which today covers things from eclipses to transits or anything which can be predicted within the calendar framework.

The empirical agenda in the late 17th century redirected predictive astronomy to experimental sciences and the beahvior of objects at a human level and then turned it back into the celestial arena with a vengeance now known as the 'scientific method'.

The world has seen enough subversion of late so I would appeal to those who care about astronomy to revisit the roots of this situation which hinged on how 'hypothesis' looked to the original astronomers and interested people and how they were unable to resolve the issue . Even I have to draw in external comments without totally agreeing with them but rather to demonstrate that such an issue would have existed -

"Here lurked the danger of serious misunderstanding. Maffeo Barberini, while he was a Cardinal, had counselled Galileo to treat Copernicanism as a hypothesis, not as a confirmed truth. But 'hypothesis' meant two very different things. On the one hand, astronomers were assumed to deal only with hypotheses, i.e. accounts of the observed motions of the stars and planets that were not claimed to be true. Astronomical theories were mere instruments for calculation and prediction, a view that is often called 'instrumentalism'.. On the other hand, a hypothesis could also be understood as a theory that was not yet proved but was open to eventual confirmation. This was a 'realist' position. Galileo thought that Copernicanism was true, and presented it as a hypothesis, i.e. as a provisional idea that was potentially physically true, and he discussed the pros and cons, leaving the issue undecided. This did not correspond to the instrumentalist view of Copernicanism that was held by Maffeo Barberini and others. They thought that Copernicus' system was a purely instrumental device, and Maffeo Barberini was convinced that it could never be proved. This ambiguity pervaded the whole Galileo Affair."

The schools and colleges of the world have adopted the 'scientific method' as an extension of Newton's agenda which tried to obliterate the distinctions between hypothesis as they existed for thousands of years in interpreting observations on a celestial scale and hypothesis at an experimental level.

It is difficult to know if anyone understands what was done and why it leaves for a bleak world.

I might, just might, have had what some call a "light-bulb moment".

Our pet parrot said, "I would always imagine that true observers would be delighted with the perception that they turn to face the Sun in two separate ways as summer/winter is really an offshoot of the polar day/night cycle when combined with daily rotation."

Yes Gerald, I agree with you. The night sky at midnight GMT in January isn't the same as the night sky at midnight GMT in July and the height of the sun above the local horizon at noon GMT isn't the same in December and July either. The trouble is that for years you have consistently refused to accept this. Have you finally changed your mind??

On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 6:35:07 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Yes Gerald, I agree with you. The night sky at midnight GMT in January isn't
the same as the night sky at midnight GMT in July and the height of the sun
above the local horizon at noon GMT isn't the same in December and July either.
The trouble is that for years you have consistently refused to accept this.
Have you finally changed your mind??

He has always acknowledged these observational facts.

He just denies the interpretation placed on them by the Newtonian empiricists
with their clockwork agenda!

Oh, sorry, with their modelling agenda and clockwork celestial sphere universe.

Thus, it is the idea that the Earth's true, or basic, or fundamental period of
rotation is 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds, with the rotation in relation
to the Sun of 24 hours being a mere compound motion resulting from the Earth's
rotation and its orbital motion together is what he rejects.

The Earth orbits the sun once a year - as Copernicus told us, and as Oriel
celebrates - and, in his opinion, it also rotates once every 24 hours. Because
the proper way to measure rotation is from the orbit - not by skipping over the
Earth's subordination to the Sun and going directly to the stars. That's
Ptolemaic! At least he thinks so.

John Savard

Thank you for this explanation - I would prefer to read Gerald saying the same thing for himself though.

Has he really devoted more than a decade of his life to such a trivial (and almost entirely unsuccessful) campaign?

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 11:47:54 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Thank you for this explanation - I would prefer to read Gerald saying the same
thing for himself though.

Well, if you go back on Google Groups, and dig through his older posts, where
he explains himself at greater length...

It's took me some time in following his posts to piece together as much as I
have of what he seems to be getting at.

Has he really devoted more than a decade of his life to such a trivial (and
almost entirely unsuccessful) campaign?

Well, as you can see from his _rhetoric_, he feels he is battling for the very soul of astronomy, and Western civilization in general. So while the subject of the dispute seems to us to be a small matter of viewpoint, he finds it symptomatic of a more fundamental malaise.

Basically,

- he thinks mathematics is generally just obfuscatory mumbo-jumbo, especially when he doesn't understand it;

- and that astronomy needs to be open to everyone with a sensitive soul.

So the issue is really "about" how astronomy has been taken away from people as
a place where they can experience the Universe and Solar System in an ennobling
and creative manner that will bring them closer to God... and turned into a
soul-crushing twisted insult to common sense.

Think of Sauron asking Winston Smith how many fingers he is holding up.

That's what he thinks this "trivial campaign" is all about!

John Savard

I genuinely find it quite sad that Gerald has devoted the better part of a decade on this mission. Thanks to Google it is possible to identify the many places he has posted minor variations of the same material - with pretty much the same results. Virtually nobody buys into his vision and his refusal to answer direct questions about how, where and why he parts company with main-stream astronomical thought annoys the very people he is attempting to get on his side!

Surely even he must realise that his current tactics are not working?