[quote="ololololo" pid='90210' dateline='1787635916']
@Linda, the point isn’t to prove Antonio wrong, but to assess subjectivity. Where can I find similar details, and how can I understand these ideas myself?
Subjectivity is the problem I think.
A good explanation doesn’t consist of saying, for example, “these are pipes, so something is flowing out of them, so this something is flowing somewhere,” or “I see it as pipes,” but rather of clearly stating what this argument is based on and how it can be proven.
You're right, it is not explanation, it is description, seen though a subjective lens.
Let’s assume that Antonio assumes that the planets are marked inside the spheres. How can he prove that Rosetta, located at the top left, is the Moon? He can prove this by noting that it has a yellow color, that it can be divided into two parts — crescents — and that it is located opposite Earth (or in the same row as Earth).
I’m sorry for starting to explain, but it’s for the sake of completeness
Yes I understand, that is why I have used the word story, because what he describes does not hold any solid historical background or link to real observations per se except in very vague terms. I call it world building. Maybe I do it myself with my own theory (literally, in fact) but it is based on something people were actually doing at the time, the craft of cartography. I know of no precedent to stars in tubes affecting plants, generally it is rays, streams, or currents (the last two sound more like my take, though, but Antonio has mentioned that the nymphs are simultaneously fluid as well, so this seems to have been dealt with). But there are tubes in the vms, so Antonio is building them into his construct in order to include them as well. Maybe they are crystalline and allow the rays to travel through them, like fibre optics. I can see it, but to me it is a new idea, not based on precedents of the time. If this is the work of someone with new ideas then I suppose it could be the case.
However i note that if it is all about star influence on plants, why is there not more about that, like when to plant or harvest, it is all just left as a vague ethereal mist of influence, it doesn't appear to explain the actual features of that sort of thinking.
@Linda, the point isn’t to prove Antonio wrong, but to assess subjectivity. Where can I find similar details, and how can I understand these ideas myself?
Subjectivity is the problem I think.
A good explanation doesn’t consist of saying, for example, “these are pipes, so something is flowing out of them, so this something is flowing somewhere,” or “I see it as pipes,” but rather of clearly stating what this argument is based on and how it can be proven.
You're right, it is not explanation, it is description, seen though a subjective lens.
Let’s assume that Antonio assumes that the planets are marked inside the spheres. How can he prove that Rosetta, located at the top left, is the Moon? He can prove this by noting that it has a yellow color, that it can be divided into two parts — crescents — and that it is located opposite Earth (or in the same row as Earth).
I’m sorry for starting to explain, but it’s for the sake of completeness
Yes I understand, that is why I have used the word story, because what he describes does not hold any solid historical background or link to real observations per se except in very vague terms. I call it world building. Maybe I do it myself with my own theory (literally, in fact) but it is based on something people were actually doing at the time, the craft of cartography. I know of no precedent to stars in tubes affecting plants, generally it is rays, streams, or currents (the last two sound more like my take, though, but Antonio has mentioned that the nymphs are simultaneously fluid as well, so this seems to have been dealt with). But there are tubes in the vms, so Antonio is building them into his construct in order to include them as well. Maybe they are crystalline and allow the rays to travel through them, like fibre optics. I can see it, but to me it is a new idea, not based on precedents of the time. If this is the work of someone with new ideas then I suppose it could be the case.
However i note that if it is all about star influence on plants, why is there not more about that, like when to plant or harvest, it is all just left as a vague ethereal mist of influence, it doesn't appear to explain the actual features of that sort of thinking.