If Copernicus made extraordinary claims...

[Boojatta]

then he would have needed extraordinary evidence to establish that the planets travel in circular orbits around the Sun. Since when does there exist extraordinary evidence in support of false claims?

However, if the claims that he made were ordinary, then why are children taught that he was anything more than an ordinary, mediocre thinker?

[cosmik debris]

1. You are aware that this is the religion and theology forum, right? n/t

[kurth_]

2. In what respect, Charlie?

[Occam Bandage]

3. You know what would make this forum a much better place?

If you were to--instead of posting a dozen threads asking questions peripherally related to the definitions of various terms--actually post what you believe and invite criticism. Alternatively, I might enjoy seeing you post a commonly-held belief and provide an argument demonstrating an error in that belief.

Well, at least this one isn't a poll.

[ZombieHorde]

23. I disagree, Boojatta's posts and polls are very entertaining.

[Random_Australian]

4. ...

"people tend to dislike how oblique you make things - instead of a community discussion these are odd enough that only you know what is going on and only you learn something. This is as annoying as hell" -extraordinary claim?

[ZombieHorde]

24. "instead of a community discussion these are odd enough that only you know what is going on"

Although the true motive may be oblique, the queries stand on their own.

[Random_Australian]

26. I'm going to have to disagree. For a clearer example, don't look at this thread,

but the one about Honey-nut cheerios.

That said, Booj has been putting in an effort to make his threads something we can all respond to recently, which I appreciate.

[Silent3]

5. Okay, you win.

The whole "extraordinary claim" idea is a sham that doesn't hold up to your brilliant, probing questions. Claiming that magical sky daddies exist is not an extraordinary claim at all. Reasonable belief in their existence requires no more evidence than a warm feeling in your heart that you know they're out there for you.

Happy now?

[Boojatta]

10. I believe that your message is a straw man attack.

[Az]

11. Its frustration... not a logical fallacy

You are a very frustrating person to talk with.

[ZombieHorde]

25. No, it was a straw man.

[cosmik debris]

12. GASP!!!!!

Boojatta typed a simple declarative sentence.

I'm overwhelmed.

[Occam Bandage]

14. I believe that claim is extraordinary.

[Taverner]

18. Dead on!

Nail meet hammer

[Az]

6. The claims he made were extraordinary at the time

The established thinking at the time was quite different than it is now. And as such in order to prove his case he had to come up with extraordinary evidence. Science does not simply roll over on someone's say so. And the more removed a claim is from the established norm the more evidence it has to come up with to establish it's claim.

Today it is normal to think of the solar system as being sun centric because the evidence was found that showed that this is in fact how it is. Thus today stating that the earth goes around the sun would not be an extraordinary claim because it does not differ from our current understanding.

Do you really not understand this? I mean it seems pretty obvious. Its questions like these that make people wonder what the heck you are doing. Are you just jerking people around? Or do you really have a point. And if so please.... please get to it.

[Boojatta]

8. "in order to prove his case he had to come up with extraordinary evidence"

Can you describe some extraordinary evidence that supports the claim that the planets travel in circles around the Sun?

[Az]

9. He had to collate tons of data

Something that had not been done to that time. The data had been collected. But no one had successfully gone through it and examined it for indications of what it implied for the motion of the heavenly bodies to the extent that he had. He tied all this together with mathematical proofs showing that these observed numbers conformed to patterns predicted by very specific mathematical formulas.

Extraordinary evidence. Brilliant mathematical analysis. And a methodical application of the scientific principle. Thats how its done.

[Silent3]

13. Beware a possible semantic game -- circular vs. elliptical

Copernicus (and few others before him who too) greatly improved upon the Ptolemaic Earth-centered model for describing the motions of the planets. Heliocentrism was an essential first step to any proper understanding of the solar system. Copernicus failed, however, to break away from the then-popular paradigm of circular orbits. You still end up with large errors if you try to describe the motions of the planets based on Sun-centered circular orbits, but you can at least get roughly accurate results in a manner far less complex than using Ptolemaic cycles and epicycles.

Kepler's proposal of elliptical orbits is what it took make a big leap in accurate prediction. Later, Newton's understanding of gravity provided a rationale for why orbits would be elliptical, and further laid the groundwork for understanding departures from perfect ellipses caused by complex multi-body gravitational interaction.

At any rate, I suspect Boojie Boy is playing a semantic gotcha game, telegraphed by underlining the word "circular". Since centuries of observation do not support truly circular orbits, any claim that insisted that orbits are perfect or near-perfect circles would indeed be extraordinary. Such a claim would have to offer a solid explanation for the "apparent" eccentricity of planetary orbits.

[Az]

15. He's trying to leverage in anecdotal evidence

He wants to site witnesses of miracles as significant evidence of the divine. Unfortunately for him subjective evidence is flawed and open to deception, misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and a host of other problems. Thus just because someone claims to have seen bricks fly doesn't mean we overturn the laws of physics as we understand them. Its going to require more evidence to substantiate such an extraordinary claim. And he hopes to use a large number of subjective anecdotal claims as a means of claiming extraordinary evidence.

Of course he won't come out and say this. He is trying to play a gotcha game. As soon as he detects a break in the what is being explained to him about the idea of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence he will then, and only then, bring out his agenda.

[Boojatta]

17. If Shakespeare used the phrase "a nice distinction", then...

then he would likely have been using the word "nice" to mean something other than what the word "nice" means when people nowadays say "have a nice day."

Did Copernicus use a Latin word that in his days meant "elliptical", but that now means "circular"? If not, then what pray tell is the nature of the "semantic gotcha game" that you refer to?

[Silent3]

21. Perhaps circular means elderly...

...and orbits means rotates and what Copernicus was trying to say was that if his grandmother had wheels then she'd be a wagon.

A nice wagon.

[arKansasJHawk]

19. DING DING DING

BWOOOP BWOOOP BWOOOP

We have a winner!

Thank you, Az, for layin' it out. That is EXACTLY what is meant by offering extraordinary evidence to meet an extraordinary claim. So, too, did Newton and Einstein and Bohr and many others provide extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims (or theories) that changed our fundamental understanding of the universe.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. You can read it yourself.

In the "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium."

[edhopper]

7. I had some

extraordinary pancakes. Unfortunately they were not served on top of cute bunnies.

[HamdenRice]

20. There is no Copernicus

Only Zuul !

[ZombieHorde]

22. extraordinary evidence to establish that the planets travel in circular orbits around the Sun

Was his evidence too ordinary for you?