Talk:Geocentric model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject History of Science (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics / History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by History Taskforce.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.
 
WikiProject Astronomy / Astronomical objects  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Geocentric model is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
 
WikiProject Solar System (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Solar System, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Solar System on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
For more information, see the Solar System importance assessment guideline.
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Text in footnotes[edit]

We should not be bolding text to emphasise it. A lot of the text is direct quotation but it's unclear how much. Also, should some of this be in the article rather than just in the references? The same problem and material is at Flat Earth. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The reference section should be split off from notes into separate section. Bolding is not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixes done. The notes section needs to be looked at, such extensive quoting is not necessary. If a reader is interested in researching the original text of the source the reference points to it. Only when explanation is needed for the context should notes be used. Some of the notes may constitute COPYVIO. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Other cultures[edit]

soo did other culture belive in geocentricism or... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.29.246.245 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Occam's razor[edit]

From http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/The_Bible_says_the_earth_is_fixed?oldid=12228[edit]

Occam's razor favors the simplest answer. The Old Testament authors simply believed the earth is fixed and wrote what they believed. The simple explanation is plausible because people living in that region at that time didn't know the earth moves. [1]

The Bible[edit]

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable." [2]

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..." [3]

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..." [4]

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken." [5] [2]

1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.[6]

More here

The Bible and science[edit]

  1. The Bible doesn't say the earth orbits and rotates in ways impossible for humans to change.
  2. The Bible says the earth has firm foundations and isn't moving.

Believers try to reconcile the immovable earth in the Bible with the moving earth that modern Science shows is real. This involves complex unprovable assumptions. Remember Occam's razor tells us we should prefer simple explanations with few assumptions rather than complex explanations with many assumptions.

Complex assumptions[edit]

  1. Believers must assume the Bible is divinely inspired while other supposed sacred texts from other religions that contradict the Bible are false Superstition. There is no reason to treat the Bible differently from other supposed sacred texts.
  2. Believers must assume the inspiring Deity chose ambiguous language open to misinterpretation. Especially before Heliocentrism came to be widely known the Bible seemed to show a fixed earth. Why should a deity go to the trouble of inspiring a sacred text and leave the language unclear?

Unsurprisingly believers end up with complex explanations for references to a fixed earth [3] These explanations are less plausible.

  1. As shown above the Bronze Age and Iron Age people who wrote the Old Testament didn't know the earth moves and the simplest explanation is that they wrote what they mistakenly believed.
  2. The simple explanation is plausible because people living in that region at that time didn't know the earth moves.
  3. The simplest explanation is that the Bible is mythology similar to other Mythology of the time and that the Bible is untrue. [4]

A different user added the named post below in RationalWiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There are passages in the Bible that are clearly figurative and everyone accepts that. Biblical inerrants-literalists-inerrants made exceptions for texts which are clearly figurative. One could, I suppose that the places where the Bible says that the Earth is flat is one those exceptions because there is long history of Bible-readers who accepted the Earth being spherical. But that excuse is not possible for geocentrism because nobody, until the rise of modern science, noticed that the geocentric texts were figurative. It impossible to claim that Biblical geocentrism is "clearly" figurative if so many people missed that. The most one can say is that authors misunderstood their audience - everyone for 2000 years! TomS TDotO (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

References and footnotes[edit]

  1. ^ Ancient Greek astronomer, Aristarchus of Samos proposed a Heliocentric theory but he lived in a different area and well after most of the Old Testament was written. Historians know of no earlier heliocentric theories than the theory of Aristarchus. In any case Aristarchus didn't have much of a following and heliocentrism didn't become popular till Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler made their discoveries millennia later.
  2. ^ Geocentrism
  3. ^ [1]
  4. ^ One thing that's really hard to explain is why in the 21st century so many people still take seriously texts written by Bronze Age and Iron Age people who didn't even understand the dynamics of the Solar system.

I wish I could add this to the article as I'm sure it's logical. Does anyone know a secondary source that says anything similar that I can use as a reference. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Name this article "Geocentrism"[edit]

Pretty much like Heliocentrism isn't called Heliocentric model. I know this may have been suggested in the past but still...

Also, when I google geocentrism, this article isn't the first one to show up. Instead, an article from rationalwiki appears featured Tetra quark (don't be shy) 21:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree but for a different reason. "Geocentric model" suggests there is a single model, when this article discusses a variety of different geocentric models. "Geocentrism" seems to avoid the implication of a single model. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Lutheranism, Missouri Synod[edit]

The statement "However, in the 1902 Theological Quarterly, A. L. Graebner claimed that the synod had no doctrinal position on geocentrism, heliocentrism, or any scientific model, unless it were to contradict Scripture. He stated that any possible declarations of geocentrists within the synod did not set the position of the church body as a whole." This is provided with a cite to the relevant issue of Theological Quarterly, which someone had annotated with a "failed verification" tag.

I removed the tag. It's true those exact words do not appear in the cite, but the statement was not marked as a quotation. I just read the article myself and it seems a fair summary. The only reason I'm not giving relevant quotations from the source is that it's rather prolix in an early 20th century kind of way and it's too much typing to reproduce, but the author makes it very clear that 1) Pamphlets advocating geocentrism were published in a private capacity only, regardless of an author's connection to the Synod, and 2) it's outside the Synod's purview to teach anything on scientific topics. 192.91.173.34 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)