[001]
LordGro
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
The Catholic Church and conservative scholars rejected the thesis of Copernicus and Galileo that the Earth was moving round the Sun rather than the other way round, even though the Copernicus-Galileo (heliocentric) model could explain the movements of the planets far better than the traditional geocentric model. Instead, the old-style astronomers developed an \
to:
The Catholic Church and conservative scholars rejected the thesis of Copernicus and Galileo that the Earth was moving round the Sun rather than the other way round, even though the Copernicus-Galileo (heliocentric) model could explain the movements of the planets far better than the traditional geocentric model. Instead, the old-style astronomers developed an \\\"improved\\\" geocentric model that ascribed extremely complicated courses to the planets (but kept the Earth in the center).
Occam\\\'s Razor would have clearly favored the heliocentric model from the beginning. What stinted discovery was the refusal to use it.
As to so-called \\\"cryptids\\\", they are indeed lacking in evidence. Sure, there are a lot of hearsay stories, shaky videos and blurry photographs that in many cases cannot be proven to be fakes, hoaxes or just simply something else entirely (like, a well-known species mistaken for a cryptid). But they also cannot be proven to be real.
I know, reading a lot of Loch Ness Monster \\\"witness stories\\\" in a row may make it feel like there was a tremendous amount of data; but when you look at it level-headed you\\\'ll find that the lack of \\\'\\\'tangible\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'solid\\\'\\\' evidence is rather striking. One would expect such a large, striking creature to make somewhat more impact and leave some tangible traces. But it doesn\\\'t, and that\\\'s fishy.
If you want a species acknowledged as existing by science, then the weight to prove this species\\\' existence is on you. It\\\'s not science\\\'s job to prove that a species which lacks proof of existence is non-existent.
A zoologist can only study creatures of which (s)he has \\\'\\\'tangible\\\'\\\' evidence -- at least some bones, footprints, or whatever. \\\"Crypto\\\" means \\\"hidden\\\" and a \\\"cryptid\\\" is supposedly a \\\"hidden species\\\". As in \\\"there\\\'s no unambiguous, tangible evidence\\\". But such a \\\"hidden\\\" species cannot be studied. Without something to study, there is no science. In other words, \\\"cryptozoology\\\" is a nonsense word. What people that call themselves \\\"cryptozoologists\\\" usually do is some kind of primitive, naive ethnology: Collecting folk tales, legends and urban myths and interpreting them as \\\"scientific data\\\".
It\\\'s somewhat of a digression, but most self-called \\\"cryptozoologists\\\" either are not aware that dragons, monsters, sea-serpents and beast-men are mythological creatures found in folk legends and fairy tales all over the world, alongside with dwarfs and fairies, or are inclined to count such legends and folk tales as \\\"scientific evidence\\\".
As to \\\"why would eye witnesses lie to us?\\\", there are two reasons:
* A wacky sense of humor and joy in fooling gullible people with tall tales
* Getting some attention and standing in the limelight for some time.
\\\'Nuff said.
Occam\\\'s Razor would have clearly favored the heliocentric model from the beginning. What stinted discovery was the refusal to use it.
As to so-called \\\"cryptids\\\", they are indeed lacking in evidence. Sure, there are a lot of hearsay stories, shaky videos and blurry photographs that in many cases cannot be proven to be fakes, hoaxes or just simply something else entirely (like, a well-known species mistaken for a cryptid). But they also cannot be proven to be real.
I know, reading a lot of Loch Ness Monster \\\"witness stories\\\" in a row may make it feel like there was a tremendous amount of data; but when you look at it level-headed you\\\'ll find that the lack of \\\'\\\'tangible\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'solid\\\'\\\' evidence is rather striking. One would expect such a large, striking creature to make somewhat more impact and leave some tangible traces. But it doesn\\\'t, and that\\\'s fishy.
If you want a species acknowledged as existing by science, then the weight to prove this species\\\' existence is on you. It\\\'s not science\\\'s job to prove that a species which lacks proof of existence is non-existent.
A zoologist can only study creatures of which (s)he has \\\'\\\'tangible\\\'\\\' evidence -- at least some bones, footprints, or whatever. \\\"Crypto\\\" means \\\"hidden\\\" and a \\\"cryptid\\\" is supposedly a \\\"hidden species\\\". As in \\\"there\\\'s no unambiguous, tangible evidence\\\". But such a \\\"hidden\\\" species cannot be studied. Without something to study, there is no science. In other words, \\\"cryptozoology\\\" is a nonsense word. What people that call themselves \\\"cryptozoologists\\\" usually do is some kind of primitive, naive ethnology: Collecting folk tales, legends and urban myths and interpreting them as \\\"scientific data\\\".
It\\\'s somewhat of a digression, but most self-called \\\"cryptozoologists\\\" either are not aware that dragons, monsters, sea-serpents and beast-men are mythological creatures found in folk legends and fairy tales all over the world, alongside with dwarfs and fairies, or are inclined to count such legends and folk tales as \\\"scientific evidence\\\".
As to \\\"why would eye witnesses lie to us?\\\", there are two reasons:
* A wacky sense of humor and joy in fooling gullible people with tall tales
* Getting some attention and standing in the limelight for some time.
\\\'Nuff said.
