Joined: Sep. 2006
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 30 2007,12:32)|
|BlarneyA demonstrates that an aptitude for accounting does not a scientific mindset make. |
|The Illusion of Knowledge Revisited|
...Both Darwinism and the standard model are based upon inferences from observations, not direct observations. They are in a different epistemic category from, say, the heliocentric solar system, which has been observed directly.
Set aside the unintended irony of the title of his post.
The heliocentric solar system was amenable to "direct observation" as such (say, by means of the first Voyager) only because of the success of inferences from observations that were leveraged into Newton's mathematical model of gravitation and its generalization to celestial mechanics - a model that waited nearly three centuries for "direct observation" yet was secure nonetheless. BlarneyA sets out to dis inferential reasoning within science (a tired trope within creationist epicycles) and instead refutes himself, without knowing it.
The movement of the Earth was well-established by indirect observations. Early, direct observations included Bradley's discovery of stellar aberration in 1725, Bessel's measurement of stellar parallax in 1838, and Foucault's pendulum in 1851.
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.