Post #316,823
11/6/09 9:52:54 AM
|
Now you're talking ivory tower "belief"
I can't remember where I read this one, but I liked it. Someone was arguing with a couple of college philosophy types who insisted there was no reason to believe the evidence of our senses. He said he wanted to show them something that would convince them. They walked outside, and as they approached the busy street he pushed them both into the street.
Of course they jumped back and demanded to know what the hell he was thinking. Don't get ahead of me here ... Okay, yeah, you already figured it out. He said, "You claim not to believe the evidence of your senses. But clearly you act as though you believe it. You apparently have two definitions for 'believe': The one you actually mean, and the one you use for mental masturbation."
I think it was on Pharyngula that I once read about beating creationists with a baseball bat. And making the argument the whole while that you can't really prove that you did what you're in the process of doing.
--
Drew
|
Post #316,832
11/6/09 12:48:32 PM
|
yabbut kismet sez
I am in the street because it is willed that I am there
works on true schizophrenics as well
|
Post #317,656
11/22/09 10:46:41 PM
|
Also official RC theology
Skeletor's* objection to JP II's apology about the Galileo situation: the problem isn't (and yes, he wrote "isn't", not "wasn't") that he was wrong, but that he considered observation rather than Church teachings as the way to understand truth.
So yeah, it is a matter of faith. And I'm an official heretic, because I think reality is real.
-------------------
You know, Hexadecimal Ben.
|
Post #317,661
11/23/09 12:06:03 AM
|
Galileo's problem...
... was that 1) he insulted Urban in his book, 2) he couldn't prove the Copernican theory, but was presenting it as fact.
The Church itself said that if he had been able to prove the heliocentric view, then Scripture would have to be inspected to see how it had been misinterpreted.
Galileo was a cantankerous man with nary a social bone in his body (typical Asperger's, prolly). He was a devout Catholic and friends with Urban (until he screwed up in his book). He was also prone to jumping to conclusions and arguing out of ego rather than fact (eg. his beliefs about the tides and comets).
The Church itself was not opposed to science, and as I mentioned above it believed that science and the Bible could not contradict each other. Any such contradiction was either badly interpreted Scripture or bad science. Had Galileo presented the (at the time) theory as, indeed, a theory and not as fact, or had he actually been able to prove it, the Church would have started the reinterpretation process instead of a trial.
It didn't hurt that he pissed off all of his contemporaries with his arguing and polemics (tides and comets, natch), so they all turned on him. :-)
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
|
Post #317,702
11/23/09 12:40:59 PM
|
And Bruno, too
I understand the Church had just gone through the debate with Bruno, who argued heliocentrism as a political model. A political model that rejected the Church's political authority. Bruno's heliocentrism was rank pseudo-science even by contemporary standards, and it is sheer coincidence that it happened to put the right object in the middle. His politics were guaranteed to get you a Church Barbecue - if you try to take down the biggest power structure on the planet, eventually it will bite back.
The Church position with Galileo, as I understand it was mostly "Look, we just did helio, it's bullshit". And they came to that position mostly honestly.
At the time, the Church wasn't trying to hold science back. It was trying to control it, use it. Advance it, when that fit the political and financial goals.
The argument I found most disturbing wasn't from the Renaissance. It was from the man who is now Pope. That position is that doctrine trumps reality. That Galileo was wrong even though he was factually right.
|
Post #317,722
11/23/09 5:26:17 PM
|
Newton was a bit like that too.
He's famous for his work in mathematics, physics and other things, but he was also not a nice person and apparantly could be a real dickhead when it suited him.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #317,729
11/23/09 8:46:12 PM
|
I didn't get that impression from "Galielo's Daughter"
It's been a while since I read it, so I may be off, but that summary doesn't match my impression.
For instance, in the paperback version of Galileo's Daughter, p.234-235:
[...]
Niccolini, whose ingenious, meticulous letters to the Tuscan secretary of state over the next two months constitute a summary of the pretrial hearings, told his houseguest everything he knew. From the files of the Holy Office, an ominous document had surfaced that some considered sufficient to ruin Galileo. The paper dated from his visit to Rome of December 1615 through June 1616 -- long before Ferdinando had become grand duke, before Niccolini had been named ambassador, before Urban had been elected pope.
These old notes from Galileo's Inquisition dossier, Niccolini explained that Galileo had been officially warned not to discuss Copernicus, ever, in any way at all. And so, when Galileo had come to Urban in 1624, testing the feasibility of treating Copernican theory hypothetically in a new book, he had in fact been flouting this ruling. Worse, it now appeared that he had intentionally duped the trusting Urban by not having the decency to tell him such a ruling even existed. No wonder the pope was furious.
Galileo felt certain these notes Niccolini mentioned must refer to the warning Cardinal Bellarmino had given him, hat in hand, just before the pronouncement of the edict. But the late cardinal's warning had not been so strictly explicit as Niccolini's information now seemed to indicate. It had left leeway for hypothetical discussion. Freedom to discuss the topic hypothetically was all Galileo had asked of Urban, and all that he had done. Surely the whole unfortunate misunderstanding could be resolved once his side was heard.
But Niccolini feared that His Holiness and the Holy Office, having made a great show of dragging Galileo to their doorstep, would not admit to having blundered by arresting an innocent man.
[...]
(Typos mine.)
There were many, many people who had their knives out for Galileo for a long time. They weren't friendly to science that challenged their geocentric view. No doubt GG had a big ego, but he was a giant of science of the time.
Naturally, Dava Sobel is interested in showing Galileo in a favorable light, but her narrative sounds plausible to me.
FWIW. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
