A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 15th 15, 10:27 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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.

  #2  
Old February 16th 15, 02:35 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

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??
  #3  
Old February 16th 15, 11:21 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

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
  #4  
Old February 17th 15, 07:47 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

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?
  #5  
Old February 17th 15, 08:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

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
  #6  
Old February 19th 15, 09:36 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

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?
  #7  
Old February 19th 15, 02:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

The term hypothesis as it refers to discerning from observations what motion is intrinsic to the planet itself,what belongs to relative motion between moving objects and what is an illusion is nothing like 'hypothesis' as it was railroaded into the scientific method.

When Kepler speaks of hypotheses he is considering the interpretation of observations on a celestial scale so things like experiments,testing and so on that are part and parcel of experimental sciences at a human level don't apply with astronomy. Newton's attempt was to obliterate the distinction between hypotheses at an astronomical level and hypotheses at an experimental level and that serves nobody no matter how tempting it would seem.

The partitioning of retrograde resolutions between inner and outer planets requires a huge adjustment which can be seen in Kepler's statement as the working principles of the original astronomers falls short of what is need to explain why the outer planets move backwards and forwards against the background stars as compared to the inner planets -

". . . the ancient hypotheses clearly fail to account for certain important matters. For example, they do not comprehend the causes of the numbers, extents and durations of the retrogradations and of their agreeing so well with the position and mean motion of the sun. Copernicus alone gives an explanation to those things that provoke astonishment among other astronomers, thus destroying the source of astonishment, which lies in the ignorance of the causes." 1596, Mysterium Cosmographicum ,Kepler


Accounting for the Earth's orbital motion by way of the apparent motion of the stars behind the Sun along the line of the ecliptic plane is the major adjustment which allows retrograde resolution of the inner planets to be considered differently from the outer planets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdFr...ature=youtu.be

Tracking Elnath,Castor and Pollux as the move behind the Sun displaces the working principles described by Kepler in that paragraph as it sets up the central Sun as a reference for the motions of Venus and Mercury.

This should be a breath of fresh air and not an attempt to drag people back to earlier centuries when they didn't have the tools we have today.




  #8  
Old February 19th 15, 02:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 228
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

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?
  #9  
Old February 19th 15, 08:50 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 1:36:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:

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


That's not the same thing as being able to come up with _better_ tactics.

Given that his ideas seem to, in one sense, boil down to Kepler good, Newton
bad - to evoke another work by George Orwell/Eric Arthur Blair, I also wonder,
though, it the root cause is due to Kepler being Catholic and Newton being
Protestant.

Perhaps he has already tried to advance his ideas somewhere where people likely
to have some modicum of sympathy for his ideas are present - and then
encountered the problem that he was discussing astronomical minutiae too
technical for anyone to follow. Which is why he came to an astronomy forum.

It seems as if his goal is to replace today's dominant current of thought in
the sciences - quantitative, mathematical, empirical, reductionist - with the
methods of thought current in the Middle Ages. On the basis that those methods
would work better. Given the achievements of technology that surround us, and
the historical fact that the Scientific Revolution took off exactly when the
shackles of ecclesiastical control over science were thrown off, his quest is
quixotic in the extreme.

One would think.

And yet there are plenty of anti-technology people out there. You may have
heard of the feminist who referred to Newton's Principia Mathematica
Philosophiae Naturalis as... a "rape manual". The people who just might find
Oriel's ideas useful, though, are in a very different part of the political
spectrum than he is, which explains quite well why he hasn't gone to them.

After all, making astronomy accessible and exciting to the common man - Oriel's
goal - is different from blunting humanity's capabilities of running roughshod
over nature, by banning fossil fuels, electricity, and perhaps even metals and
fire.

John Savard
  #10  
Old February 20th 15, 10:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default The scientific method/ empirical agenda and astronomy

The idea that the behavior of objects at a human level scale up to a celestial motions which eventually turned into the 'scientific method' looks so anachronistic even before Newton set about butchering some of the finest astronomical works the world has ever seen .

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever."

http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Newton.html


I once thought that an organization the size of NASA could deal with something as important as this but lately I have considered that they may be part of the problem. Since denominational Christianity dumped its astronomical heritage after the Galileo affair, the spiritual insights which light up observations and make sense of motions without the need to determine a cause left cause an effects between the planet's motions and terrestrial sciences high and dry.

Some way will have to be found to recover the role of human experimentation without destroying astronomy and the approaches which make it such a thrilling endeavor.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PERIMETER INSTITUTE: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 15 February 15th 09 11:57 AM
The first European/EU liberation from under the Washington Agenda asEast Europe from the Moscow Agenda gb[_3_] Astronomy Misc 1 August 3rd 08 04:38 PM
That's a fak, Jak!... ingenious scientific method Painius Misc 0 May 24th 06 01:07 AM
...The Scientific Method is Based on a False Assumption! jonathan Policy 31 May 7th 06 08:37 PM
Edmund Scientific adopts new polishing method Richard Amateur Astronomy 64 April 5th 04 02:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.