If science can't "prove" stuff, what good is it?
1) Science can disprove things. That's not hard.
2) Science can describe things with a degree of confidence. In science, we like to have a confidence level at "5 sigma" or better. (As you've seen, there seems to be some fudging on that from time to time.)
3) Science can build a model that can be used to make accurate predictions. That model may not be perfect, but if we can describe what the limitations of the model are, it can be extremely useful.
If we went through life believing that things were true because someone 'explained' why it occurred, we would be prone to believe in all sorts of things. There are many failed sciences in history, now considered to be pseudosciences, which have created elaborate explanations for natural occurrences but went out of favor due to a lack of experimental demonstration.
Exactly! That's how science works. We're always looking for something better. In the meantime, the best we've got is ... the best we've got. That's not a criticism.
A round earth can be demonstrated. Why should that be impossible? The phenomena used to determine things about the Round Earth Theory need only to be cross-correlated to provide controls for a given explanation.
I agree completely. The ability to cross-correlate all aspects of a model is crucial.
If the distance to the sun could be determined with multiple triangulation methods, that would provide demonstration of the matter. For example, Aristarchus used the phases of the Moon to measure the sizes and distances of the Sun and Moon. During a Half Moon, the three celestial bodies should form a right angle. By measuring the angle at Earth between the Sun and Moon, his method shows that the Sun is 19 times as far from the Earth as the Moon, and thus 19 times as big, which is far different than the current Transit-of-Venus method. If we question Aristarchus' ability to measure angles, a modern version of his method to come up with an agreement with current theories would provide confidence of truth. In contradiction, the history of the sun's distance tells a story of disagreement and conjecture.
You've got an excellent point here, but I would say your logic is flawed somewhat. We are faced with quite a puzzle here. Instead of throwing out the observations altogether, let's try to work the puzzle. How can it be that one observation gives us the answer 19, and another gives us 400? Here's what I've got:
a) One of these observations is wrong.
b) Both of these observations is wrong.
c) The margin of error on the pair of observations overlap.
According to mainstream science, the truth of the matter is that the original measurement was rather inaccurate. If Aristarchus' method were used again with better accuracy, the results should be consistent with the other methods. The Aristarchus method would remain less precise, but its error margin should contain the modern accepted value. Do you agree with this assessment?
If one could find cross-correlation between different techniques, that demonstrates the truth of the matter. This is how other sciences work to demonstrate their explanations. Multiple methods, multiple scenarios, to demonstrate a truth.
As an example, there are many different radiometric dating methods. If each of those dating methods agrees that a given sample is about the same age, this gives us confidence for the accuracy of that method. If they vary wildly with each other, it shows that something must be incorrect. This is an obvious thing which should be done, right?
We generally do not demand cross-correlation between different techniques before we accept a scientific discovery to be, "the best we've got so far." Back to the earlier topic, we understand that science is always evolving, so the science of any given moment is simply, "the best we have so far."
That said, we really prefer to have such cross-correlation. Going further, when we try for cross-correlation and fail to get it, this highlights a major flaw in the science. There are examples of this in modern science today. When this happens, we do not throw out everything and give up. Instead, we work with the best models we have while we search for more clues.
This is not a "it's impossible to prove anything" discussion. Demonstration is possible. Standard scientific competency is desired, and achievable, for these matters. Once multiple methods are involved to correlate results to verify explanations it transforms the observation and interpretation into an experiment. The interpretation is corroborated by independent methods. No longer is the matter mere speculation. It has become demonstrated.
Given the incredible effort of all of humanity to interpret and describe this theory, this level of simple scientific quality control should be an easy slam dunk. Anyone who promotes integrity in science should champion the suggestions and statements above.
From my research I do think that people have tried, and failed, to do what I have described, and so the stories are kept to the simple observation-and-interpretation ones. The information is all there, if one were to look and document it, of science's failed and contradicting efforts to determine the properties of the RET. I'll continue to document it on the Wiki when I have the time. It most certainly is not a resolute story of agreement and success. The truth will come out, sooner or later.
I want to remain friendly here, but your Wiki documentation is rather offensive to me, so let's just not discuss it.
As I've said, it's not a debate. Let's build consensus. We agree that cross-correlation is strong evidence, and failed correlation indicates a flaw.
But what do we do when there is a failed correlation? I would hope that we could agree that repeatable measurements are still genuine - even if they don't agree with each other. I hope we can agree that if they do not agree, there must be an explanation for that. The most obvious explanation to begin with is the margin of error involved with any empirical observation.
An excellent example of this is the measurement of the gravitational constant G. As you've pointed out, the scientists' estimations of their own accuracy preclude them all being correct. There is simply no way they can all be correct to within the accuracy they claim. The most obvious explanation for this is they have overestimated their accuracy. There are other possibilities (remote possibilities), but the accuracy explanation seems most likely. Of all the possibilities, the suggestion that the correct number lies outside the range of ALL the experiments is EXTREMELY unlikely.