[Pete Svarrior]

Ok, well that’s great - so you agree it’s a good representation of where the stars appear.

That is not what I said. I was very careful with my wording, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to warp it.

[SteelyBob]

Apologies - that was not my intention. You said we could agree on (possible) correlation - does this mean you agree that the stars/sun/moon etc mostly appear where stellarium says they do? Or do you have examples of cases where they don’t?

[Pete Svarrior]

Neither. It is possible that you will find some correlations between the software and the observable universe, but if you do, you won't be able to infer causation. That is all I said.

[SteelyBob]

Well that’s an equally useful reply, thank you.

The obvious follow on from that is to ask if you, or indeed any FET proponent, can show an example of stellarium being significantly wrong compared to a measured observation?

[fortytwo]

The obvious follow on from that is to ask if you, or indeed any FET proponent, can show an example of stellarium being significantly wrong compared to a measured observation?

I think that does not make any sense. This would be a case for softwaretesters but not for any FET/RET/other debate.
If Stellarium is always correct, this does not automatically proof RET true.
If there are wrong events, it does not automatically proof RET wrong. Usually complex software has some bugs and limitations.
So any outcome is without additional value except potentially verifying the software quality.

IMHO it does not make any sense to insist on following this up.
This discussion showed me, that sometimes tools are used to demonstrate something without knowing what is actually under the hood. This does not matter if all parties involved in a discussion agree the tool as valid "authority" (which might be the case if you e.g. use Excel to build a sum), but if the underlying model is of question it matters.

[SteelyBob]

The obvious follow on from that is to ask if you, or indeed any FET proponent, can show an example of stellarium being significantly wrong compared to a measured observation?

I think that does not make any sense. This would be a case for softwaretesters but not for any FET/RET/other debate.
If Stellarium is always correct, this does not automatically proof RET true.
If there are wrong events, it does not automatically proof RET wrong. Usually complex software has some bugs and limitations.
So any outcome is without additional value except potentially verifying the software quality.

I broadly agree - I'm not saying that Stellarium being 100% correct (within reasonable tolerances) is concrete proof of RET. However, a significant error in Stellarium would be hugely significant. Imagine somebody discovering a major azimuth or altitude error. That could be a software issue, in which case, as you rightly say, of no real interest here. But that would be easily checkable using some other system. If all other sources agree, but the observed situation was clearly different, then you've got an interesting argument for a significant flaw in RET.

Conversely, if we all agree that Stellarium is broadly correct, then we can simply look up data from Stellarium and, without worrying about what's under the hood, or having to verify it manually, debate whether that data is consistent or not with FET.

[Pete Svarrior]

The obvious follow on from that is to ask if you, or indeed any FET proponent, can show an example of stellarium being significantly wrong compared to a measured observation?

This is a complete inversion of the burden of proof, and nobody will entertain your demand to prove the negative. It is not my job to prove that a tool is inaccurate. It is your job to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is accurate, if you'd like to be accepted as such. Even then, as 42 points out, this would be of dubious benefit to anyone.

[SteelyBob]

This is a complete inversion of the burden of proof, and nobody will entertain your demand to prove the negative. It is not my job to prove that a tool is inaccurate. It is your job to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is accurate, if you'd like to be accepted as such. Even then, as 42 points out, this would be of dubious benefit to anyone.

It would only be an inversion of the burden of proof if I was demanding that you provide it in order to accept some particular point. I'm absolutely not doing that. I was simply asking as I thought you might be genuinely interested in discussing it, given that discovering such a thing would be an excellent possible rebuttal of RET, assuming it wasn't just some software glitch. I'm not that familiar with Stellarium to be honest, and I certainly wouldn't vouch for its infallibility. My original interest in 42's question was to see if you and Tom would accept output from it as a starting point for discussions. You've made it clear that you won't, and that's fine, it just means - and do stop me if I've got this wrong - that discussions about the positions of stars would presumably have to be backed up with observational evidence, or some other support, in order for you to accept them as valid.

[Pete Svarrior]

it just means - and do stop me if I've got this wrong - that discussions about the positions of stars would presumably have to be backed up with observational evidence, or some other support, in order for you to accept them as valid.

I'd say that's accurate. Bonus points if such an observation is verifiable by your opponent/discussion partner.