From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Truth by Observation
Message-ID: <1991Jul27.201110.21196@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 91 18:43:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1991Jul27.201110.21196
References: <RBNSTEIN.91Jul24205734@bucsf.bu.edu>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Distribution: alt
Lines: 125
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Nntp-Posting-Host: venus.iucf.indiana.edu

In article <RBNSTEIN.91Jul24205734@bucsf.bu.edu>, rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu (Michael Rubinstein) writes... > >I observe the sun rising and falling in the sky. >Scientists and teachers tell me that the sun is actually NOT moving, but >that it is in fact the Earth that is moving around the sun.

Sorry, but no, Science does not really say that at all. What Science says is that the Earth and Sun mutually revolve around their common center of gravity (along with various other motions measured with respect to other reference frames, such as the Galaxy as a whole, etc., etc), which motion can be considered as _either_ the Sun circling the Earth, _or_ vice-versa, or any desired "combination", depending on your preferred frame of reference. Furthermore, Science backs up its assertions with very accurate formulae which it invites _anyone_ to use to predict or retrodict results of observations of this motion (for example future and past eclipse observations, changes in the length of the day and year, etc.) and will even agree to any needed modifications of its formulae if anyone succeeds in demonstrating that its predictions are invalid.

> They provide >reams of evidence to back this up, but it is challenging material.

(Sarcasm alert!) Well, if you're intelligent enough to learn how to post to the net, you're intelligent enough to master _that_ material.

>Who should I believe?

Ah, but that's the point! You don't have to take anyone's "word" on the subject. Go ahead and make your own observations, and I can guarantee you that if you can convincingly demonstrate that Science's teachings _don't_ work, Science will gladly accept whatever modifications are neccessary. What do you think professional Scientists _do_ all day long in the lab, eh? > >I observe myself to be human like everyone else.

Who should I believe? :-)

>Scientists and teachers tell me that I am a member of an inferior and >inherently corrupt race,

Oh, yeah? Could you provide me with an accredited Science textbook that actually does make this bald statement? Or are you just forcing your own interpretation on some material that really says something else? References, please.

> that I will therefore amount to no good, and >that I deserve to be either enslaved or exterminated.

Again, please back this up with a reference, where you can prove to me that Science has _anything_ to say about your slavery or your extermination. Science is _not_ in the business of making moral judgments on ethical issues!

> They provide no >satisfactory evidence,

And have you stopped beating your wife yet? :-) Seriously, Science _couldn't_ provide any satisfactory evidence concerning your slavery or extermination, since it doesn't deal with such subjects. Now, if you want evidence concerning the mutual motion of the Earth and the Sun, go to any good public library and check out some books on Astronomy, then come back and tell us there isn't any evidence! (I only mention this because you aren't clear about _what_ evidence you claim Science lacks.)

> but they are supported by many powerful, admired, >and respected people.

Maybe there's something to this. After all, Einstein (the quintessential 20th century Scientist) was admired, respected, and powerful enough to have some influence with a certain American President when the Atom Bomb project was proposed. Now, why do you suppose that was so? Was it because he was a member of some secret society or "ruling class"? Or was it because he had a brain, and actually used it to achieve something instead of sitting around whining about a situation he couldn't be bothered to think about?

>Who should I believe?

Again, Science does _not_ ask for your "belief". However, if you are unwilling to use your brain, or don't have the time or inclination to investigate something on your own, and _have_ to have an opinion on some subject(s) covered by Science, you can always _choose_ to buy its findings on faith. You might ask yourself some simple questions when making this choice, like, "Does it work?", and "What's its 'track record'?".

> >It's not easy using your brain all the time, is it? >

Yeah, but it _is_ good for you!

A good place to start, IMHO, is with any of the many educational books dealing with Science written by Issac Asimov, who is one of the best "explainers" of Science around. Any public library has probably got scads of these (some may be in the Juvenile section, but adults can benefit from them anyway.) Judging by some of the claims you've made about what Science teaches, I really think you need to try again at the "ground floor" because I honestly believe that you have a very poor grasp of what Science is about, and I honestly believe that you can attain a better grasp all by yourself, if you want to.

>-- >Michael Rubinstein >rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu >DISCLAIMER: The opinions above are solely mine, and I refuse to mark >them with IMHO's. If you can't tell fact from opinion, you should be >running for office instead of reading news.

Battin at iucf.indiana.edu no .sig yet

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank