Are you saying the only way we can accept something to be true is if you hypothetically tracked it the whole way around without any steps in between?

MODELS are a system of postulates

Postulates are a system of assumptions

Assumptions are a system of beliefs

A system of beliefs is a RELIGION

I thought we were talking SCIENCE here

Who thinks the earth is flat

@Superiorna_Artiljerija WRONG it's a measurement

@Human Sheeple You don't need to believe in an assumption to decide to test it to see if it is valid

Hello is the earth flat

<a:PeaceAndTranquility:534895590933528596>

Alright, @Dec knudssen (MRS x KILLS) has been warned for '**Bad word usage**'.

The earth is not flat end off get a grip 🌏🌏

Ha

@Fading No, I'm saying that it's would be true if you could successfully falsify it by showing that 1) an orbital model sufficiently represents the observation and 2) any other model *wouldn't* sufficiently represent the observations. So far, you can explain planets by either an orbital model, which also assumes that planets have an orbit or that planets are some kind of wandering lights in the sky that happen to have a path. Using occam's razor on the two would yield that it's more likely that planets do in fact not have an orbit.

Here is the definition of a MODEL

SYSTEM OF POSTULATES

@Bannebie Number 2 isn't actually the case

Postulate means TO ASSUME

ASSUME means to PRETEND

In a simplified way, you pick the _best_ model with the most evidence and ability to predict (which is what testability is)

PRETEND means to make BELIEVE

So a system of postulates is a system of beliefs which means RELIGION

the GLOBE RELIGION

Sorry I'm not a member of your athiestic GLOBE RELIGION

I believe in SCIENCE

lol when you try to disprove religion using a dictionary 😂😂

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

https://ifunny.co/fun/ln9GmWEd6?s=cl

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.