This is getting into the realm of philosophy of science so all I'm going to say is that most people accept that it's possible for past events to be known even if no-one was there watching the events happen. If you aren't one of these people then feel free to call it an assumption/blind leap of faith/whatever you want.
The first thing
you should understand is that the scientific method is a derivative of logic and philosophy. Without either of the first two, there would be no science (or very bad science, and I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you want that). Secondly
, just because Ã¢â‚¬Å“most people acceptÃ¢â‚¬Â something as truth, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make that thing correct or true; scientifically, philosophically or logically! Witness the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court, or HitlerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Nazi Germany (just to name a few). The most sincerely honest person can be sincerely and honestly incorrect (especially when it comes to making a decision on factors they cannot prove due to incomplete information). Thirdly
, there is no empirically scientific method to account for the assumed millions, or billions of unrecorded [and therefore unobserved] years posited by any presupposed calculations; therefore that opinion becomes just that (nothing more than a presupposition. And that my friend begs the very question). Fourthly
, you cannot separate logic and philosophy from science because you have to use them both when conducting true scientific experiments. You donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t conduct any scientific experiment without using a set of logically arranged steps in order to come to a conclusion (to prove or disprove). And you have to use (at least) basic philosophic concepts such as reality and causality (etcÃ¢â‚¬Â¦) in order to perform those experiments as well. You cannot take either those for granted (philosophy or logic), because we use them in every day life (including the scientific method).Therefore
, to make a statement like Ã¢â‚¬Å“This is getting into the realm of philosophy of scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â, and thus sweep it aside as an unneeded quantity, is sweeping all of science aside as well. And I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think you intended to do suchÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.
Getting back on topic to the moon, do you have a better source for past recession rates than the one I linked. If you do could you provide it and a description of how these rates were determined. I'd be happy to discuss something related to physics or math on this topic, but philosophy issues like whether direct observation is necessary bore me to tears.
Everyone has Ã¢â‚¬Å“a better source for past recession ratesÃ¢â‚¬Â for the unknown, and consequently, everyone has as valid a set of calculations for that unknown (even if they just make them up). Because they are simply unobserved (and as a result, completely knocking the empiricism out of those equations). So, when you state that your recession rates are correct, and the other person is incorrect (BTW, in order to do this, you are being dogmatic and absolute in doing so
), you are being neither rational nor scientific. You are being neither Ã¢â‚¬Å“free thinkingÃ¢â‚¬Â, nor scientifically reasoning, because true scientific reasoning rules out nothing and explores ALL possibilities.
Real science uses either/or logic (the Law of Non-contradiction), and the philosophy that spawned it, in order to prove or disprove any hypothesis or theory. Either its right or itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s wrong! Either it works or it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢tÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. All
science related to physics or math on this topic and any other scientific issue, is based on philosophy and logic. So, if it bores you, this is an issue you might need to resolve using reasoning and systematic examination, to find a correct conclusionÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. But, there again, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d be using philosophy and logic to do so