Exactly, Jeremy. That's why we know the earth actually is at the center of the universe and that the sun circles it. After all, Copernicus was the equivalent of a bloke on the internet, and the great majority of those equipped to judge knew he was wrong.
Russ,
You are a smart man, why do you decide at this point to use such an obviously irrelevant argument?
If you are right, why not stick to sound logic to try to convince us instead?
To spell things out clearly, here is why the example you are using isn’t logically relevant.
Af the time of Copernicus, the dominent opinion on the mechanics of the world was ruled by a small group of religious people with vested interest in keeping the masses in the dark. They used a myth to do so.
Copernicus, on the other hand, used science to bring to the table a new explanation that still isn’t 100% proven today. The earth may in fact still be at the center of the universe and the sun may be rotating around it. But... Harvard scientists have ample data to proof us that this is most probably not the case.
And the press gives very little coverage to the few religious fanatics still thinking today that the earth is at the center of the universe. But they get some.
Similarly, nobody is saying that the people not agreeing with the dominant scientifical theory about global warming should’t be heard. Only that their voice should be given an amount of airtime proportional to the degree of credibility of their originators as assessed in terms of scientific value. Not to repeat today what happened to Copernicus
Today’s Copernicus is the majority of the scientific community thinking that man is most probably responsible for global warming. Not the opposite.
The essence of your story isn’t that opposite opinions are often right, the essence of your story is that science should prevail over myths.
So, with all due respect, your example was a very poor one.
Cheers,
Bernard
