Originally Posted by
Jodie
No they haven't. I've stated that my theory is speculative since the discussion started.
Bingo! I'm the lucky winner who gets to do this first!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7#post10985977
Originally Posted by
Jodie
Asking whether there is a precedent for the kind of scientific revolution you are proposing is in no way off-topic or irrelevant. For your speculation to have any substance or possibility of reality, it would need to overturn decades of research and experiment, a point I have (I think) clearly made many times. If this hasn't ever happened, and is unlikely ever to happen, then what is the point of your speculations? Especially, as has been repeatedly pointed out, you constantly attempt to cite science as support for your ideas.
With regard to your point about the Dark Ages, this is a term that specifically applies to Europe, from the fall of the Roman Empire to the early Middle Ages. Linking to information about science in Classical Greece, the Middle East or the Far East is irrelevant. It also undermines your earlier point, which you appear to have forgotten. You brought this up as an example of how modern science has overturned previous beliefs. If we go with your own, unique, definition of the Dark Ages, you have just argued against yourself. Anything discovered by using the earlier attempts at the scientific method is still, more or less, valid now: Eratosthenes' measurement of the circumference of the earth, for example. Not 100% accurate, but close enough. Nothing founded in the scientific methods utilised in the cultures cited in your articles has been completely overturned by modern science.So either we use your definition of the Dark Ages, in which case there is no precedent for the kind of revolution of proven fact you are arguing for, or we use the conventional definition, in which case there was no use of the scientific method, or a use that had almost no effect on learned opinion at the time, in which case your example is irrelevant.