reply to post by Rewey
Funny. I think you'll find that the geocentric model was the 'Official Story'. People went to jail for preaching the 'truth'. I don't know why
you'd claim that 'skeptics debunked' that. Surely what you mean is that 'ye olde twoofers' pointed out how things actually worked until the
'Official Story' had nowhere to turn...?
At the time, however, Geocentric model had the preponderance of evidence, and the backing of powerful religious movements such as the Pythagoreans
during the Hellenistic Era, and the Roman Catholics thereafter. Aristarchus is the first one to propose heliocentric model with strong evidence - but
that evidence was mostly observational and mathematical. And it wasn't comprehensive. While impressive for 2,300 years ago - he was nowhere near as
close to measuring the distance and size of the Sun and planets as Eratosthenes was in measuring the Earth's circumference. Nor could his model
predict solar events, partially due to the fact he didn't account for elliptical orbits and couldn't patch it the way Geocentrics had.... a problem
that would persist until Kepler.
Unfortunately Aristarchus's work has been largely lost to war and the fires fanatics set to the Library declaring it a pagan affront to their god.
However, Claudius Ptolemaeus's Almagest still exists if you care to read it. Considering the evidence of the time, it's status as definitive was
well earned. Although Heliocentric model was debated and toyed with by Islamic, Greek, Roman, and other scholars - it never gained proper traction.
Keep in mind that at this time, "Science" wasn't really around as we know it. Today's science is about disproving and discrediting bad ideas. In
the more Aristotolean methods, logic was used to establish axioms (truths) about the world which from there one used to try to prove their case. The
Scientific Revolution was more of a tying together of several threads of existing academic study - while questioning even the axioms of Aristotle.
Newton's physics experiments, Kepler's mathematical description of elliptical orbits, Galileo's observations with his telescope... these are what
provided the evidence necessary to change minds and kick off the revolution in thought. The Catholic Church, however, provided the most resistance at
this point. They were more interested in preserving dogma, than following the evidence.
This, IMO, is a similarity between Conspiracy Theorists, Faith Based Reasoning, and Aristotelian methods. Most CTers didn't come to their position by
following the evidence. For many, their mind is already made up as to what is the truth and what is not. Evidence is accepted not on merit, but on
it's ability to advance the movement - even if it's incorrect it's still sold to the gullible as if it were truth. The disconnect between reality
and their chosen "truth" is so vast that one HAS to suspect conspiracy just to try to defend the position. This is evident elsewhere as well.
Christian fundamentalists claim "conspiracies of science" to denounce god in light of no evidence. Racist Nationalist movements claim similar
conspiracies of science - as genetics and evolution does not support their chosen position. Homeopaths denounce medical science as a Conspiracy. Some
fringe behaviorists still denounce Cognitive Science as "reductionist pornography". Yet science only works, however, because it attempts to remove
observer bias using methodologies such as peer-review and reproducibility in an attempt to follow the evidence, even over cherished beliefs. Those
attempts to circumvent the scientific method and remove falsification because they cannot abandon their axioms even in light of evidence is called
pseudoscience.
So... it wasn't actually "troofers" who overthrew a conspiracy to establish Heliocentricism... it was the establishment of the Scientific Method,
the invention of modern science, which used evidence to prove their points... not the house of cards patch-by-patch arguments needed to correlate
axioms to reality despite evidence.
To segway from here into a response to Donny 4 million, the more commonly reported figure is 1/5 American Adults believe the Sun travels around the
Earth. Though I've seen figures bounce back and forth between 1/5th and 1/3rd. I would suggest it depends on where you're drawing your samples from.
The 1/5th number comes from a Harris Poll survey result. The 1/3rd number, I'll admit, I don't have a source for. I recalled hearing it several
years ago around the time of Kitzmiller vs. Dover on a site with a strong liberal bias. I don't necessarily doubt the numbers, however, considering
that separate polls consistently turn up figures between 42% and 51% of Americans believing in YEC or Special Creation over Evolution - a figure of
1/3 Americans believing in the Geocentric model is not outside the realm of possibility if YEC creationists polled were slightly disproportionate due
to location the poll was sampled in.
Considering the Biblical Support given to Geocentric model, I simply don't find it surprising that religious fundamentalists who claim the Earth is
less than 10,000 years old, who deny Evolution at any cost, who think Dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden with man, and who willing and proudly
admit that all that evidence is secondary to their chosen axiom - Scripture - (See: Answers in Genesis, Association for Biblical Astronomy, etc) could
believe in something so asinine in large and organized numbers.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the
scriptural record. ~ Answers in Genesis
This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always
astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to
the truth of that stance. ~ Geocentricity.com
Though, please keep in mind that that initial comment was "tongue-in-cheek" - not a deliberate intention to deceive. My standards of evidence
dropped in that case for the sake of making a sarcastic snipe. It wasn't intended to be taken very seriously. Though, if you do want to get down to
quoted sources - I can list several for the 1/5 statistic... which, personally, does it really matter if it's 1/3 or 1/5? Either number is far,
far too large to be acceptable in a Nation which wishes to ensure their position of leadership in world affairs.
[edit on 5-10-2009 by Lasheic]
