Sorry Bozo, I didn't see your post before.
So those who accepted what Roemer and Galileo said were wrong? That's a rare position, today.
Those who didn't accept the evidence where wrong.
He didn't have evidence. He only had assumption, and his theory nicely explained the phenomenon he observed. This was not an evidence, as other phenomena could have explained it as well.
He had a theory to explain the evidence, and that may have been wrong.
People were wrong to dismiss it not because he had evidences (he didn't), but because he gave a theory who explained the observation better (and simpler) than anything they could come up with. Which doesn't make it the absolute truth, but a better theory.
So you see the difference between evidence an the explanation of said evidence.
Now, if it is the only point we are disagreeing, we should still agree on the conclusion, based on the other points.
I don't think we can, since I base my Worldview on falsifiable evidence.
-Incomprehensible- is -incomprehensible-
So you just made an unfalsifiable claim, because once you understand something, you just shift the goalpost one unknown further.
But the point is, there are things simply outside of human comprehension. Yes, the human mind can craft, imagine and understand incredible things. But do not overestimate it, it also has its limits. Of course, they are hard to perceive from the inside, and being a human myself, I can't give you examples.
This assumes an "outside".
Any evidence for that?
But don't think that there is nothing out of our grasp simply because we can imagine transdimensional goldfish living in our brains and influencing our thoughts. Because that's not anything extraordinary, IMHO. Transdimensional objects are not such a complicated idea, just something we can't 'visualise'. Brain parasites influencing behaviour are also something well-known. With all the shapes they can have, a goldfish is not the worst one. Linking the dots together is something very neat for the mind to be capable of, and very useful, but it is not the all-reaching tool one may think.
I am not talking about parasites, I am talking about Xhywfä, Gäaqlb and Üfgqyax.
The idea is funny, but he is lumping together wildly different things, and seems to make the same common mistake that rationalism can cover anything.
Anything rational at least.
Now irrational things.....
Among other things, bashing homoeopathy is like bashing modified organisms : both sides have some very valid arguments, both sides have loads of bullshit arguments, both sides are often unable and unwilling to grasp what the other side is really about, and no side wants to do the damn studies, because it is expensive and despite all they claim, it may prove them wrong.
I am happy to discuss pilosophy, but this does actual harm to actual people.
If you are saying that Homeopathie, which puts peoples life at risk because they think it is actual medicine instead of a placebo, is not a criminal offence, then I am afraid I will no longer continue this conversation.
I DARE YOU to explain the potency system of Homeopathie to us.
And regarding your study read here and here.