Message from @Some Meme
Discord ID: 567341635982196746
You don't even understand what MODEL means
MODEL=RELIGION
Occam's razor, by the way, is not generally applicable to things like this
@Fading In the case where a model has suffient evidence to be proven, yes. But in this case one model has a ton of assumptions to be made for it to work, while the other one can be clearly observed without the need of assumptions. So in this case you can definitely use occam's razor to reduce it and say that the more simple explanation is *most likely* the true one.
Which doesn't mean that it's *definitely* the true one
God what happened
@Bannebie No I mean, Occam's razor doesn't mean anything in the case of talking about hypotheses. Simplicity is not an indication of anything
Aristotlian debate is futile in the realm of science. Experimentation is key.
Occam's Razor is constantly used in foolish ways
Simplicity is an indication of what's more likely to be true when confronted with having to choose between a system that relies on multiple assumptions and one that doesn't rely on them.
The original intention was the serve as a guide to which hypothesis to test because it will be the easiest _to test_
It's simply a way to determine what's *more likely* to be true
Okay but in the case of an orbit, what alternative system requiring less assumptions do you mean?
The one that we can observe, motes of light moving in the sky
@Bannebie It's not really. It's no system, just what I feel to be more true.
That's an observation
Not a system
@Fading direct measurement
@Human Sheeple The accuracy of that instrument is completely inappropriate for the scale we're talking about
That's what I meant, I think my wording was just inadequate
@Bannebie Okay, but then you've said nothing? Science is attempting to answer _why_ and orbits are a model that has been proposed and then repeatedly, exhaustedly verified
@Fading Well feel free to measure it yourself, here go to Ali Baba I even took the trouble to fill out the order form for you
@Human Sheeple it reads the same when you put it on a basketball
@Hamburger Guy No it doesn't!
Stars move in the sky is a great start, an observation. But it is not a system
@Human Sheeple That picture is precisely the reason a spirit level is inappropriate. Both systems can and will behave as perfectly flat for the purposes of the instrument regardless of their macro-scale real shapes
That's what I said ya dingis
@Fading Did you visit Alib Baba yet?
Sorry I forgot to post the link
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/HJ-factory-direct-sales-high-quality_60651662844.html
The thing is that it's a huge leap from *things move in the sky* to *planets have an orbit around a gigantic ball of gas*. What I'm trying to say is that we cannot go any further from the observation that we can see lights moving in the sky since we lack the data to come to any other conclusion and most likely will never have the data to do so
The terrain may be rough on that image of a basketball but just put the same line through the Himalayas
@Bannebie Well in short terms, no? Our only observation isn't "things move"
We have many variations upon the data we now use
So unless we can *directly observe* planets orbiting a sun, which would confirm the hypothesized model, where's no way we can be absolutely certain that planets have an orbit
Balls in the sky move. They also move in certain patterns. Then you look at those patterns and you wonder how it interacts with other things that are (for the sake of this argument) proven in science (like gravity). Then you theorise maybe the force of gravity is keeping them in line, how could that be? Perhaps an orbit
@Bannebie Is viewing our planets at different times which then traces a path that is an orbit around our sun not a valid observation?
It is, but the only thing you can tell from that is that, again, things seem to move in the sky. You can't possibly make the assumption that gravity keeps them in orbit because we don't know what planets are made out of and if they're even affected by gravity.