Message from @Human Sheeple
Discord ID: 567340513682784291
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
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 ππ
You don't even understand what MODEL means
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
Subscribe to parry if ur a flat earther https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgq4F5bH9gP4sytkrpFJarw