Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Obviously, I'm having a hard time doing it with you guys as well.But you cannot reconstruct the past with words and concepts meaning something different now as to what they meant then.
Obviously, I'm having a hard time doing it with you guys as well.
You're more interested in hearing yourselves talk than answering my questions.
No, it hasn't --- 13.
AV1611VET said:Just he --- or were his peers mistaken also, and he is the scapegoat?
Not quite.They were all mistaken. They based their conclusion on beliefs rather than empirical evidence.
Are we done here now?
Not quite.
Are you telling me that Aristotle didn't provide one bit of empirical evidence to back his discovery?
(Or whomever discovered it --- 'no one', according to you.)
Not quite.
Are you telling me that Aristotle didn't provide one bit of empirical evidence to back his discovery?
(Or whomever discovered it --- 'no one', according to you.)
I find it interesting that you didn't mention that he may have been taught that by his predecessors.I honestly don't know, AV. He might have provided some evidence, such as "well, the air doesn't really feel like it weighs anything, does it?" He could also have looked at the air and gone "Hmmm... I can't really see the air, so it probably has no structure at all". However, he did not have access to the laboratory facilities required to conduct accurate experiments with air.
See above.To connect this with your original question, Aristotle didn't discover that air has no mass. He postulated it, based on logical thinking but without the necessary knowledge of physics or chemistry.
I find it interesting that you didn't mention that he may have been taught that by his predecessors.
You claim he didn't discover this [at-the-time] scientific fact, yet you didn't give credit to his predecessors.
I have a feeling he was indeed made a scapegoat to shift the focus off of the fact that scientific errors can, and are, perpetuated.See above.
No, science then and now works very different. The scientific method as its known today did not exist back then so you cannot make the two equivalent.
I find it interesting that you didn't mention that he may have been taught that by his predecessors.
You claim he didn't discover this [at-the-time] scientific fact, yet you didn't give credit to his predecessors.
I have a feeling he was indeed made a scapegoat to shift the focus off of the fact that scientific errors can, and are, perpetuated.
I'm trying desperately to keep this thread focused off of the word 'today', and putting the emphasis on 'then'.No, science then and now works very different. The scientific method as its known today did not exist back then so you cannot make the two equivalent.
I'm trying desperately to keep this thread focused off of the word 'today', and putting the emphasis on 'then'.
I know what you guys are trying to do, and I'm too vigilant to fall for it.
I don't even want to see the word 'today' in this thread; but hey, that won't stop you guys, will it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?