ASSUMPTIONS

ZETETIC COSMOGONY:
OR
Conclusive Evidence
THAT THE WORLD IS NOT A
ROTATING—REVOLVING—GLOBE,
BUT
A STATIONARY PLANE CIRCLE.
By Thomas Winship
1899

 start here

(Post 1/47)

ASSUMPTIONS.

In order to account for natural phenomena in keeping with the assertions of the learned, many hypotheses have to be laid down, and many unfounded assumptions are absolutely necessary to support the unsound fabric of astronomical imagination.    

In "Modern Science and Modern Thought," by S. Laing, the following occurs on page 51:

"What is the material universe composed of? Ether, Matter, and Energy. Ether is not actually known to us by any test of which the senses can take cognizance, but it is a sort of mathematical substance WHICH WE ARE COMPELLED TO ASSUME IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT for the phenomena of light and heat."

Whatever explanation may be furnished regarding light and heat on this basis, must be discarded as utterly untrustworthy, because the premises are assumed.

Once upon a time it was stated that "the stars were motionless," but as soon as assumption was allowed to talk, the scene was changed, for, as Science Siftings informs us (Vol. 6, page 39):

"As soon as it was CONJECTURED that the stars were subject to the law of gravitation, it was inferred that they were not motionless."

Professor Huxley had to resort to assumption to account for the disappearance of ships at sea, although had he known the truth of the matter, or taken the trouble to enquire, his unwarranted assumptions would have been totally unnecessary. He says:

"We assume the convexity of the water, because we know of no other way to explain the appearance and disappearance of ships at sea."

What learning! What profound wisdom! If we "know of no other way" it is better to admit the fact and wait until we "have found out some other way" to explain the difficulty, if there is any. Knowledge is gained by practical investigation and experience, and has no need of the assistance of assumption to provide an excuse for ignorance. If water could be proved to be convex, there would be no need to assume it to be so. We should have many proofs and abundant evidence of the fact. But the fact that water has been proved to be level, hundreds of times, makes it necessary for those who refuse to believe proved facts which tell against their theory, to resort to assumption to maintain their unreasoning position. And yet this same Professor, in his book ''Science and Culture" says:

"The assertion which outstrips evidence is not only a blunder but a crime."

The assertion, therefore, that water is convex against proof furnished many times over that it is level, is not only a blunder, but a crime.