Significance is a logical judgement.
You keep tossing out the same principle in different words as though it were an absolute, without any argument or proof. This isn't up to your usual standard of discussion. What would Jacob Klein say of this level of argument? Nothing kind, I can, having had him for freshman seminar, assure you. Unsupported assertions are useless, he used to say in his wonderful, soft voice and accent.
Stars and planets are both celestial bodies, but they have significant differences, chief of which is that stars are naturally occurring nuclear reactors, and planets are solid or semi- solid bodies that revolve around them
So what? Did that matter to Ptolemy? All that mattered to him was that the planets wandered and were more difficult to analyze by epicycles. Until there were telescopes, planets outside our solar system didn't exist, so any differences between them could not have been significant to anybody before about 1600, which is roughly when Lippershay reportedly applied for a patent on the first telescope.
Do you contend that the difference between stars and planets outside our solar system was significant to Aristotle even though he had no knowledge and could have no knowledge of such planets? Is that your agument? |
