geni wrote:
On 7/7/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
wrote:
The oblate spheroid shape of the earth was not
likely observable in
Aristotle's time. Such a deviation from Aristotle's conclusion that the
Earth was a sphere is trivial.
No because the Aristotelian model assumed perfect geometric shapes
(see the shape of the orbitals). The perfect sphere thing also runs
into problems if you manage to spot Baily's beads during an eclipse.
Did Aristotle ever observe Baily's beads? How perfect is a perfect
sphere. Aristotle never denied the existence of hills and mountains.
Such a deviation was not trivial at all then because it
would involve
tearing apart a key part of the model.
It's trivial enough to be beyond the observational powers of the time.
It's
prmature to suggest that failing to mention Popper was indecent.
Ec
Popper provides us with a complete philosophy. Einstein less so
It also slows down the rate with which we can bring up Imre Lakatos
and then Paul Feyerabend and start punching holes on the claim.
Charlotte did not mention falsificationism and Popper, you did. You
also introduced the word "decent." It is presumptuous to suggest that
she even knew about Popper.
Ec