Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lafcadio
You still dare to show up?
|
I am not going to waste too much energy explaining, so pay attention.
Quote:
|
You're dead wrong. To determine a non-circle area with triangle areas (he used a primitive form of calculus called by him "the calculus of indivisibles") it's nor Archimedean, nor Greek (though bears a resemblance). Showing that he used Euclidian elements (wtf, we even use them today) it clearly misses the point and it's a strawman.
|
Some idiotic answer. He formulated the Second Law first, and he used the Earth's orbit which is almost circular, plus he did not discover the elliptical form yet.
Quote:
|
You did not. You have not a clue about Kepler's work and slowly enlighten yourself from Google. It will take a while until you'll be able to deal with this conversation.
|
Straw man. This is exactly what I have done. You don't want to get it, take some pills.
You are talking about Kepler's work? With some prejudiced false image of the perfect scientist, and reading from his book the night before? Get real.
Quote:
|
Have you heard of a guy called Roger Bacon? Have you heard of something called "natural philosophy"? Do you know something about those guys believing the universe is ruled by physical laws? Do these homeworks, and you'll find what it's the basis of research.
|
Take a break. Did you hear about Francis Bacon? If you want to talk about method, bring him into play. Physical laws and the music of the spheres.Right. The soul of the sun moving stuff around. What you need to do is understand that history and literature is not going to help understand science. It requires thinking.
Quote:
Your rhetoric only uncoveres the strawmen you have.
As for your question to take the observed data, propose a model, create a theory and then to verify it and make predictions with it, it's scientific.
|
Good lad. I guess this sums up your understanding of the scientific method. The demarcation problem or the theory ladden aspects are indeed beyond this 12 grade understanding. Read some Popper or Kuhn, Lakatos or articles about it. That should do.
Quote:
It was crucial for his accuracy (as Tycho's observations are reknown even today for their accuracy), but the method remains the same. Probably the ellipses would have had other equations, probably the other laws would have had other forms, but a potential different set of input data is not conflicting with the methodology. And as long as you don't understand that the difference between science and other types of knowledge is in method, you dont' understand anything in this discussion.
Though I agree with most you said in 1, 2 and 3 this is misleading and false.
Before he was Tycho's assistent he had observations on his own. Once he got the huge database from Tycho and until he published his works, of course his main focus was the model. Even today, it's not always the same scientist the one that gathers data and the one that models it. But Kepler performed also other observations during his modelling, though we know his work is mainly based on Tycho's observations. If you've read Kepler (and again you prove you didn't, nor even a good brief on his works) he said that he performed further observations to find other points to confirm his orbits.
It's fair to emphasize that his data are mostly inherited from Brahe, but it's unfair to claim (or to mention not that) he wasn't observing or that the observation he made were totally irrelevant for his findings.
|
It is beggining to sink in? You finally read about his basis of research. I was talking all the time about the observations that he was working on in order to arrive at the Laws. You really had no idea what he has been studying. Take a good look here until it will come to you:
Even Kepler said he wrote the book after the observations of Tycho Brahe.
Also, there is another confirmation in World Harmony:
KEPLER:
"it was conceived mentally on 8th March in this year one thousand six hundred and eighteen, but submitted to calculation in an unlucky way, and therefore rejected as false, and finally returning on the 15th of May and adopting a new line of attack, stormed the darkness of my mind.
So strong was the support from the combination of my labour of seventeen years on the observations of Brahe and the present study, which conspired together, that at first I believed I was dreaming, and assuming my conclusion among my basic premises. But it is absolutely certain and exact that "the proportion between the periodic times of any two planets is precisely the sesquialterate proportion of their mean distances ..."
Quote:
Your mistake??? You arrogantly told me I have no idea what I'm talking about and you googled for a poor encyclopaedia entry to back up your point. You proved that your argumentation has two ingredients: errors and ego.
I know my English is bad but your understanding is terrible. I haven't held the fallacious reasoning you show above, I just pointed you the field you should study to find such informations. If you're satisfied with Google and encyclopaedias, I can't help, but following this track you will be prone to such mistakes from now on, as you did until now. If you take this as a personal offense, it makes the things even worse for you.
|
Dude you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, who do you think made that quote famous? Bernard de Chartre? Wake up. You told me to grab a book of Western history of thought.As I expected. The Straw Man. And stop the google and encyclopedia charicature. Just because you memorize names and years, and pretend to be some sort of defender of people's work that you can't makes sense of, does not entitle to fabulate about other people's knowledge.
Of course, since you say so. You did not understand it.
Quote:
|
So you haven't read this book, either. Come on, this is an easy one
|
You discovered it after some of our past encounters? I am telling you, Einstein is too much. Better stick to history of medieval philosophy and 'science'. It's a lot easier.
Quote:
|
Nor Kepler was talking about physics when he talked about astrology, but you didn't make that difference for him. You cared about showing that a scientist (natural philosopher) can hold unscientific views. Surely they can. So did Kepler, so did Newton, so did Einstein. It's however true that in Kepler's time the difference between scientific and not-scientific was considerably smaller (often one could argue both with physical and metaphysical arguments).
|
No baba, this is a False Analogy. The impact that his mystical views had on his research was decisive. I would ask you to prove that for Newton or Einstein, but I am not holding my breath.
See above Ignorant.The picture. Focus on it.
Quote:
|
You were told. Improve your reading skills. Or better, try to read at least some briefs on his works and see what exactly he did.
|
I was told only baloney. I cannot help if the brain won't help. The problems of Philosophy of Science are indeed too difficult to be noticed by some, not to talk about debating them.
There was not method: it was a research driven by mystical and absurd ideas, trust in Tycho, a mathematical genius and luck. Maybe this will get help you understand what I was talking about
:
THOMAS KUHN, STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, The University of Chicago Press 1996 pg. 87
"Kepler’s account of his progolonged struggle with the motion of Mars and Priestly’s description of his response to the progliferation of new gases provide classic examples of the more random sort of research produced by the awareness of the anomaly."
ibid., pg. 152 [about the reasons that make scientist choose a paradigm]:
"Some of the reasons – for example the sun worship that helped make Kepler a Copernican – lie outside the apparent sphere of science entirely."
Quote:
|
You have not read Kepler. Otherwise you'd have knew of his calculus. Your knowledge of mathematics is also poor. Otherwise you'd knew that to calculate the area of a circle using Archimede's method and calculate the area of an ellipse like Kepler did there are some significant differences.
|
One thing you are not taking into account is that people don't read their books the week before debating with some megalomaniac on the net. And not all people have that book into their personal library to browse the night before - got it? I am afraid to ask you to explain those methods or what a secant is. The deception was too great with the expertise on scientific method.
Quote:
|
So are the models in science today. It seems you're trying to explain the forming of a hypothesis.
|
Not quite: the Copernican model was a framework, a paradigm in the kuhnian vocabulary. The problem was that there were no empirical reasons to choose the Copernican over the Ptolemayc model in those days. And also, there were some extra-problems with Copernicanism, and that was why Tycho rejected it. Kepler had the method of selecting and interpreting the model, based on mystical ideas.
Quote:
|
That you don't know. All we know is that he took the data and abandoned even his preconceptions (and the preconceptions of his time) in order to find the correct shapes of the orbits.
|
That I know. If he had kept the Earth in the center, that would have been the end.
Quote:
Ignorant bla bla = lots of post hocs and non sequiturs. Just for a thought exercise - to correctly circumscribe the perfect solids you need spheres not ellipsoids
When Kepler used his mathematical skills to model the observations he obviously abandoned the perfect solids theory. He even admits it (perhaps with bitterness, we can speculate and talk about his wishful thinking, but again, that can't strip him of his fair scientific attitude he proved).
The 5 solids theory you put so much emphasis is published in a pre-1600 book, the Mysterium which you also mention. It was his way to explain the apparent arbitrary distances from heliocentric model. When later he found his own laws, you can imagine, this explanation would no longer work.
What's even more interesting, that in the same book where he published the 5 solids theory he questioned both Ptolemeic and Heliocentric systems from mathematical modeling point of view. So this phantasmagoric connection between the 5 solid theory and its final mathematical model over Brahe's and his data fails to be supported by evidence.
|
Dude, stop throwing Fallacies around, you apply them incorrectly.
It was the neoplatonic and pythagorean harmony that God used to geometrise his creation. Again, the fact that you are aware only of the Mysterium Cosmographicum shows you are defending something you don't know. You did not do your homework.
From 'On the more certain fundamentals of Astrology' 1602
Quote:
Thesis 37
As God the Creator borrowed the decoration of his corporeal world from a corporeal form which is quantity, it is proper that the places themselves, indeed, the spaces themselves and the masses themselves of the bodies, were picked out in such a mutual proportion as originated from regular kinds of solid figures, which I demonstrated I my Misterium Cosmographicum; while the (movements) of the bodies, which (constitute) the life of the world may either harmonize pleasantly or cooperate strongly in the case when they have a proportion chosen from ordinate (regular) planes. For as the plane is an image of the solid, so (also) is the motion an image of the body, and inasmuch as no more than five solids are possible in geometry, so also the harmonic relations originating from the comparison of the ordinate (regular) planes could not be more than eight, which I shall, please God, demonstrate at some other time in a book entitled Harmonics
|
Also, the same theme comes back in World Harmony. 1619. Plus some bullshit about the music.
Quote:
|
Ad nauseam, non sequitur, post hoc and false. You may say that he liked this model for being able to match it with his theological views. Though you have no proof if his theological views were influenced by his findings or otherwise. What's certain is that when he defeneded Copernican view (unusual for his time, though the model had some impact as a hypothetical alternative) he defended both on physical and metaphysical grounds. He placed sun in the center because of its heat as source of energy and motion. He sometimes argued that driving force could be magnetism.
|
:rolling: You are abusing those fallacies man. Come back. There is no Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. I did not use only a temporal relation (which is not the case, since the neoplatonic theme comes back).
As for your 'physical grounds', that is just your anachronistic interpretation. The Sun had a Soul, there was intelligence involved and so on. You don't know Kepler. He had some explanations involving magnetism (which was already known and formulated by Gilbert), and placed the south pole deep inside the sun. That was later. But he did not abandon the mystical part - that's the point you don't want to get.
The solids, the Laws for him were a confirmation that he found the mathematical relations that satisfied his mystical baloney, the pythagorean harmony. Got it yet?
Quote:
|
Dude, between Mysterium and his Laws there are many years. You're making a mess from his entire life and work, not to say about your clumsy interpretations (yours or from the article you got this brief). You probably missed when Kepler even proposed heat or magnetism to explain the interaction between Sun and planets.
|
I forgive you. See above, the foundations. See World Harmony, 10 years later. See the quotes I gave you from Tertius Interveniens above. Read them. Published 1610. The Post Hoc is only in your mind. He never gave up his neoplatonic ideas: the Laws confirmed what he believed.
Quote:
I don't know what's your source, but it's deadly wrong on several accounts.
First, the orbit of Mars was calculated together with Earth's orbit (the one which you refered to in a paragraph above). Kepler took in account that he observed from Earth. He had three points - Sun, Earth, Mars to use when detecting positions in space and drawing orbits.
Second, the ellipse doesn't come from successive circles as you imagine. The ellipses came from the errors he found and from the unwillingness to use epicycles or other interactions but the interactions he assumed between planets and Sun. To draw an ellipse it's not that complicated as you think - you need only two measurements - for each axis.
Third, Archimede's method does not work for ellipses.
Fourth, First Law comes indeed from an coincidence, but that it's of an angular measurement Kepler made, which shown that Sun it's indeed in one of the ellipse's focuses. Otherwise First Law would have been "planets move on elliptical orbits around the Sun".
|
It is a good thing that you discovered the parallax.I did not say he did not do it. Now please tell me how can you calculate the position using 3 points, in movement, for Earth's orbit.
Also, what is the method for finding coincidences?
And of course, you do realize that this mathematical exercise is not a scientific pursuit. He was searching for relations in the data. Random research.
Quote:
You're wrong as you were shown above. In that googled quote he only says that between an ellipse and a circle, the intermediary figure is also an ellipse which is correct.
If you whine that he actually did 'trial and error' method to get the best shape for his actual data, I might remind you that's nothing unscientific in that. We're talking about forming the hypothesis, you can perform any number of trials to create a valid model.
|
I am not wrong about that. Just that you are not aware of what I am reffering to. Plus, that is MATHEMATICS. In Science we are proposing
explanatory hypotheses. He was doing a phenomenal reasearch, organizing and finding relations between data.
Quote:
What??? Renaissantist taxonomy?
The only problem is your misunderstanding. I repeatedly pointed out why Kepler is scientific. It seems you have problems with some broad assumptions Kepler made (not that to make assumptions to form a hypothesis is unscientific) and possibly with the modest quality of the peer-review, that's why I felt to make a difference. Though the difference mostly emphasizes that a scientist of those times used both physical and metaphysical arguments, which it seems is one of your problems against Kepler.
|
The Scientific Revolution took place in the Renaissance.Hopefully, you are reffering only to the science or natural philosophy from that period. Pretty soon Roger Bacon is doing science too. The Apostles are next perhaps.
You have no idea what makes him scientific or not. You are just projecting some mantra about the SM and ignoring the problems he has with his.
Quote:
Ad nauseam. It compares the astrology he practices with astronomy, the thing which I said and you keep opposing. I see no other astrology here. There's no connection between this paragraph and the other quote talking about "genuine astrology" other than your fallacious post hoc.
You previously told me "Kepler was talking like that about the Astrology performed by the idiots of his days" though from the quote it's obvious that he talks about the astrology performed by a mathematician like himself (from the same quote, but still stripped by you, with the same selective bias: "The mathematician's pay would be so low, that the mother would starve, if the daughter did not earn anything"). Now if you believe the idiots of his days were the mathematicians you clearly have no idea about Kepler's beliefs.
|
I know what happened: you knew about his opinion on Astrology only from that quote. Hence, a preconceived idea.
You haven't done your homework. Read that book on the foundations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kepler 'On the more ...' 1602
Thesis 49
This frivolous part of Astrology has been refuted some time ago on physical grounds by the Astrologer Stoefler (without looking for evidence from (Pico) della Mirandola, the enemy (of astrology) ; and it is daily refuted by experience, as during so many centuries hardly any definite time of an equinox was known to them, as has been shown by Tycho Brahe. Yet some (astrologers) adduce the cardinal signs of past years, and compare them with the effects; I will in due time show that they were false and that the true figures, on examination by the same false methods, showed to be contrary to the qualities (observed) in the following years. In the coming year (1602) the Sun enters Aries on the 20th of March by sunset, while Jupiter rises in Libra: the astrologers will consider that Gemini shall rise according to the Prutenic (Prussian) tables.
And here about some of his beliefs
Thesis 68
the conjunction of Jupiter and Mars at the end of July and the conjunction of Saturn and Mars in the month of September. Firstly, it is proven by experience that under these two conjunctions, souls are generally stunned, frightened or aroused in the expectation of revolts – which facts, when converging on a great multitude of men at one and the same place, have great importance either for achievement or for destruction, as war experience shows.
The Earth is ALIVE!!
Thesis 41
Firstly, as regards the Earth, no one will deny that the form of its whole, as far as it is a whole, is more perceptible than that which is discernible in any clod . Truly its very works, which are the generation of metals, the preservation of terrestrial heat, the exudation of vapors for the progeneration of streams, rains and other atmospheric conditions show that it arises from this kind of animate power. These prove that its form is not simply one that preserves, as in the case of stones, but altogether one that enlivens
|
Now study some more and stop the nonsense.
Quote:
|
I haven't quoted Kepler to be a scientist for he proposing magnetism (though it's a reasonable, naturalistic hypothesis) to keep his solar system working. Nor for him proposing other mystical arguments to keep his solar system together. I just described his work to create his three laws (and not only, his optics also worth mentioning) as proving a naturalistic, scientific attitude. If anyone argues about Bruno to advocate science must do it within his time, similarily as we talk about Kepler.
|
That magnestism was too based on souls and such explanations. You always use a Double Standard for Bruno and Kepler. I am trying not to. Kepler was a scientist, Bruno a philosopher.
Quote:
|
As I said I'm not teaching you, I don't see why would you learn from me anything. As for rudeness, you're no angel. From a guy that makes his entrance in this thread insulting one of the posters you won't receive anything better from me until you'll settle down your tone.
|
Insulting the guy that insults everyone? You might want to go back and see how you adressed spin for example.
Quote:
|
Please prove the site you quoted is an authority in "fallacy" subject. You failed until now and while you'll keep failing you just did an appeal to authority, like all who quote that site
|
Yup, below the median. See what those guys are.And the reference. As for your site, I hope you got it.
Quote:
I offered you a link and a description. If you cannot understand the errors being made, what can I do more?
What type of fallacy is? Well, from what you've listed it's a non sequitur and a fallacy of irrelevance.
|
No. Wrong.
arguing that evidence will someday be discovered which will (then) support your point.
If evidence will support your point, then your point will be justified. It is not a Non Sequitur. It follows deductively.
It is very relevant if future evidence will support point. It is the topic being debated. Wrong again.
It's Begging the Question.
To rely on the premise that 'Future evidence will support my conclusion' is to presuppose already that your claim is correct (the point you are trying to prove). The premise is just as unsupported as the conclusion. It is deductively valid (so it is not a non-sequitur), but rhetorically fallacious.
Logic requires more thinking than quotes and history.
Quote:
|
If your world is reduced to a room I only can pity you.
|
One hell of a reply. Also called Fallacy of Distraction: Red Herring, and a Non Sequitur.
10-26-2005, 02:50 PM
