The reason we broach this subject again is because everyone involved in and with the great earthmoving and sun fixing revolution claimed/claims science supports a nine-planet solar system and modern cosmology. Secondly, by virtue of its proper meaning, science, truly so-called, is as near to the truth of it all as one can get. Moreover, as Galileo and the popes told/tell us, whatever it is, the Bible will always agree with it, or is it the other way around.
Now we have at our disposal, volumes of well-reasoned concepts as to what exact science is, (and there is even a deposit of philosophy alluding to it) and the more one reads or listens to the ‘experts’ the more confused one can get. So, without further ado, we will try to define what true-science is by quoting the best version of it we have come across.
Science is the field of study dealing entirely with facts. — Dr Crane.
This means we can see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, smell it in nature. We can measure it, we can do it in a test-tube, and we can prove it by showing it. A fact can be repeated any number of times without change and above all, cannot be falsified. The establishment of facts is called the scientific method.
A fact is something that is direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive – in other words not hearsay, popular opinion, “expert” testimony, majority view, personal conviction, organisational ruling, conventional usage, superficial analogy, appeal to “simplicity”, or other indirect means of persuasion.
Q. OK, now back to Professor Crane. So, what is a theory?
A theory or hypothesis is a supposition; a proposition assumed for the sake of argument, a theory to be proved or disproved by reference to facts.
Q. When does a theory become a scientific fact?
A scientific theory, according to most philosophers from Aristotle to Popper, in addition to being explanatory and self-consistent (non-contradictory), must also be testable or falsifiable. It must be vulnerable to observation and we must, in principle, be able to envision a set of observations that would render the theory false. A scientific theory that does not contain these requisites is but pseudo-science, and has no right to be classed as science. Only when a theory has proven consistent and cannot be falsified will it become regarded as a fact.
Q. Good. So, what is a Law?
A Law is not a cause, a theory, or hypothesis, but a statement or formula expressing the constant order of a certain fact of nature.
Now watch this one, it’s important, for there are those -especially on discussion forums - who postulate theories and mathematical formulae sometimes not even consistent with the observations (constant order) cleverly calling them ‘laws’, and others who claim these ‘laws’ are proven causes thus facts of nature.
Q. Now, what is an assumption when used in science?
When I can’t get the facts to comply with the conclusions I want, I make one up and put it forward as a fact, but it is really an assumption. An assumption then, is a made-up fact. Any conclusion based on such an invention is a belief, not true science but pseudo-science. When the first assumption enters any scientific quest, science ceases, true-science that is, for now you have a belief in an idea, a faith, a mind-conviction, nothing more.
Spacial relativity is a fact, thus any so-called empirical proof for any particular order of the universe is no more than an accumulation of all the above.
For anyone trying to get to grips with the fraudulent ‘proofs’ offered by the Earthmovers, the following advice is crucial:
‘To begin with: any line of argument, any syllogism, which proceeds to a conclusion that we cannot deny to be true, has to satisfy two conditions. One. Its major premise must be truly self-evident, that is, not contradictable or at least proven beyond reasonable doubt. Two. Affirmations of the consequent must be avoided at all costs [for example, we know that when there is a total eclipse of the sun the streets are dark, yes? Can we thus assume the consequent and say that dark streets tell us there is a total eclipse of the sun? Of course not.] This syllogism, the so-called modus ponendo ponens at best offers only plausibilities.’
Such stringent demands, I fear, may well cause many a professor of astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, theoretical-physics and other related subjects, to have a seizure, for to them the may be(s), must be(s) if(s), but(s), could(s), might(s), etc., hold their very belief-systems together. But we are not interested in their standards are we, only those as laid down by true science and that adhered to by Church law; conditions demanded by St Augustine and reflected by Cardinal Bellarmine in 1615 to determine if something is truly a fact, potentially a fact or not a fact; conditions absolutely necessary for true science to exist and progress. Any objections?
) just out of curiosity.
