Imagine, for a moment, that the earth is actually at the center of the universe. The sun, the planets, and the stars revolve actually around the earth. Newton's laws, modified by Einstein's General Relativity, computationally compute orbits around the sun. They are very useful in providing simple, accurate approximations for all the spacecraft we send to other planets. But in reality, the sun, Mars, and everything else revolves around the earth.
Now consider that it is actually possible to develop a version of Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's General Relativity that would actually describe accurately the motions of spacecraft going to Mars where everything revolves around the earth. It would be much more complicated than the orbital dynamics equations that are currently used, but it would just as accurately give the results needed to send spacecraft to Mars.
So, here is the reality in our thought experiment, everything revolves around the earth. When planets go through complicated retrograde motion, where they appear to go backwards in the sky -- they actually are, instead of the earth's orbit around the sun passing the more distant planet in the same orbital segment.
So, in our thought experiment, the earth is the center of the universe. It only appears that the earth is orbiting around the sun with the rest of the planets of our solar system. In fact, the appearance of the sun being at the center of the solar system is so striking that there is no way to tell, experimentally and mathematically, that the sun is not at the center of the solar system.
Now suppose that much of the world is deluded into believing the sun is the center of the solar system, even though the earth is actually at the center. In fact, many scientists are also deluded in believing the sun is the center of the solar system.
Here are some questions based on the thought experiment where the earth is actually at the center of the universe.
Questions:
1. Is there any scientific validity to discuss the solar system as if the sun is at the center of the solar system, even if earth is really at the center?
2. Is it okay to use the mathematics of a sun centered solar system to calculate spaceship paths, because it is simpler to do, rather than using the much more complicated (but physically correct and real) earth centered orbital dynamics?
3. How much effort should be given to correct the delusions of others who believe the sun is the center of the solar system rather than the earth?
Now consider that it is actually possible to develop a version of Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's General Relativity that would actually describe accurately the motions of spacecraft going to Mars where everything revolves around the earth. It would be much more complicated than the orbital dynamics equations that are currently used, but it would just as accurately give the results needed to send spacecraft to Mars.
So, here is the reality in our thought experiment, everything revolves around the earth. When planets go through complicated retrograde motion, where they appear to go backwards in the sky -- they actually are, instead of the earth's orbit around the sun passing the more distant planet in the same orbital segment.
So, in our thought experiment, the earth is the center of the universe. It only appears that the earth is orbiting around the sun with the rest of the planets of our solar system. In fact, the appearance of the sun being at the center of the solar system is so striking that there is no way to tell, experimentally and mathematically, that the sun is not at the center of the solar system.
Now suppose that much of the world is deluded into believing the sun is the center of the solar system, even though the earth is actually at the center. In fact, many scientists are also deluded in believing the sun is the center of the solar system.
Here are some questions based on the thought experiment where the earth is actually at the center of the universe.
Questions:
1. Is there any scientific validity to discuss the solar system as if the sun is at the center of the solar system, even if earth is really at the center?
2. Is it okay to use the mathematics of a sun centered solar system to calculate spaceship paths, because it is simpler to do, rather than using the much more complicated (but physically correct and real) earth centered orbital dynamics?
3. How much effort should be given to correct the delusions of others who believe the sun is the center of the solar system rather than the earth?
2 comments:
1. If your worldview is primarily founded on naturalistic suppositions then there would be scientific validity to discussing alternative theories provided they did not deviate from those core naturalistic suppositions. If your worldview is primarily founded on God's word, and God's word stated in no uncertain scientific terms that the earth was the center of the universe then there would be no scientific validity to discuss an alternative theory.
2. I suspect it would be okay as long as the ships were unmanned. You might have a hard time convincing an astronaut that the math predicts the same results even though it's based on a theoretical reality instead of the way the world actually is. But if it works then why not do it the easier way? Pragmatism takes precedence in these sort of situations, doesn't it?
3.This one is less straightforward. I would say it depends on how important you believe that information is.
Jared,
Thanks for playing along with the questions in this thought experiment.
Naturalistic presuppositions is an interesting thing. If we take it to mean all there is is nature, then I agree with you, that is anti-biblical. But a variation of it can be the outworking of God's providence. Many scientists, who happen to be theists (and even Christians) will pursue scientific theories on the belief that the regular order of nature is the outworking of God's providence. Science would be looking for these patterns of God's providence. In practice, the interests and approaches of providential presuppositional and naturalistic scientists would be very similar in many areas. I think of Isaac Newton. From my understanding he was a theist and his methods were indistinguishable from someone holding naturalistic presuppositions.
Pragmatism is an interesting idea. It is sort of the idea behind Occam's Razor -- that the theory with the fewest assumptions is the best explanation. Thus Copernicus, modified by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein has the fewest assumptions and is the "simplest" theory for the motion of the sun, planets, and stars, over Ptolemy's system of the earth centered universe. And given that the biblical language appears it can reasonably be taken as non-literal with regard to earth-centric language, without doing violence to the underlying meaning of scripture, this simpler explanation makes sense as the real explanation.
Post a Comment