Replies

The fact that the models explaining the motions of the planets and even the moon and the apparent motion of the sun DID NOT accurately predict their motion is what drove countless, painstaking observations and attempts to develop new explanations.

That's incorrect. The Ptolemaic model did a very good job on the motions of the objects they could see, including the planets, moon, and sun. From lecture notes from an Ohio State Astronomy course:

EVALUATION OF THE PTOLEMAIC MODEL
Strengths:
Explains many complex behaviors with a few basic tricks.
Gives very accurate predictions of planetary positions. Still pretty good 1500 years later.
...
THE COPERNICAN MODEL
Motivations:
A conservative revolutionary, Copernicus holds strongly to idea of uniform circular motions in the heavens.
Rejects Ptolemaic model because it fiddles with this assumption ("equants") --- not Aristotelian enough!
Motivated by "philosophical" considerations of elegance, not by failure of Ptolemy's model to match data.

> But at some point, we agree that one of the possible answers appears to be pretty much correct, so we "accept" it as accurate and move on from there
That is pre-scientific superstition.

So you don't believe that science should ever accept a question as "resolved," at least provisionally, so things can move on? Instead, we should just keep asking the same questions over and over, even though we keep getting the same answers? Again, I'm glad real scientists don't feel constrained by your silly rules.

Germs are not a theory, because we can look at them and watch them do their thing.

Hoo boy. The existence of germs is not a theory. We knew about them long before germ theory. The idea that germs multiplying in the body is what makes us sick is a theory, however: that's why it's called Germ Theory. From the London Science Museum:

Germ theory states that many diseases are caused by the presence and actions of specific micro-organisms within the body. The theory was developed and gained gradualacceptance in Europe and the United States from the middle 1800s. It eventually superseded existing miasma and contagion theories of disease and in so doing radically changed the practice of medicine. It remains a guiding theory that underlies contemporary biomedicine.

[Note also use of the word "acceptance." Is "accepting" germ theory also non-scientific?]

I really think you need to brush up on your understanding of laws, theories, and observations before you go lecturing other people about not knowing science.

idea that germs multiplying in the body is what makes us sick is a theory, however: that's why it's called Germ Theory. From the London Science Museum

The hypothesis that germs cause disease has been subjected to thousands of real-time experiments -- in the present -- confirming the hypothesis and elevating it to a theory.

We can see germs multiply in number in the body as a person gets sick. We can transplant a germ from one laboratory rat to another and see the second rat get sick.

That is science.

What you are peddling is not science but superstition.