On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 00:36:38 UTC, John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote:
> On 03 Sep 2008 22:14:46 GMT, "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote:
> >>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 22:02:18 UTC, John Fields
>>
austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 02 Sep 2008 19:25:08 GMT, "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:05:34 UTC, John Fields
>>>>
austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 27 Aug 2008 19:22:11 GMT, "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>>>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:40:03 UTC, "Rod Speed"
gmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>>>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>>>>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And only a few years ago admitted that Geocentrism was wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No they didnt. They actually admitted that they treated Galileo badly at that time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At the heart of the bad treatment was Galileo's recalcitrance
>>>>>>>> in recanting his support of Copernicus' heliocentric system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
>>>>>>> earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
>>>>>>> most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the end, though, the church broke him and he did recant, so
>>>>>>>> their recent admission of guilt in treating him badly was tantamount
>>>>>>>> to their accepting Copernicus's geocentric system as true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but even those fools had managed to work out that the
>>>>>>> earth did indeed revolve around the sun LONG before that
>>>>>>> most recent admission of how badly Galileo had been treated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It was not in dispute in 1822, when they *finally* *completely* cleared
>>>>>>Galileo's work for unrestricted publication; before that, when they made
>>>>>>some moves in that direction, it's much less clear, despite frequent
>>>>>>claims that hte Church had it all settled in 1700-whatever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Department of satirical prophecy: Galileo wrote a note in the margin of a
>>>>>>copy of the Dialogue that the theologians should take care, because later
>>>>>>on it might be decided that Earth really does move, and then the ones
>>>>>>holding to the old view might have to be persecuted as heretics! So, in
>>>>>>1822, there was a stubborn censor who would not clear the work for
>>>>>>publication, and the Holy Office (Inquisition) had to threaten him!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[Sorry about the two screamers, but this is just too much fun.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>See Annibale Fantoli, "Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church", p.
>>>>>>357. Published by the Vatican Observatory, by the way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And didnt have the balls to even mention Bruno.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fraid so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Four hundred years after his execution, official expression of
>>>>>>>> "profound sorrow" and acknowledgement of error at Bruno's
>>>>>>>> condemnation to death was made, during the papacy of John Paul II."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That wasnt when they fessed up to the fools they had made of themselves over Galileo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Has anybody read what they actually *said* in their formal statement (plus
>>>>>>other pronunciamenti at the time)? I haven't, so it would be nice to hear
>>>>>>specifics from someone who had. The text that happens to reside in a
>>>>>>WIkipedia article at any given time is, sadly enough, not an authority
>>>>>>anyone could rely on.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> If you haven't read what they actually *said* in their formal
>>>>> statement (plus other pronunciamenti at the time) you might want to,
>>>>> in order to determine whether the text, which you're condemning as not
>>>>> being authoritative, really wasn't. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> JF
>>>>
>>>>Ah, I begin to understand now. You simply don't know what sources are, and
>>>>what "authoritative" means.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Actually, what I said was that since you admitted to ignorance with
>>> reference to the content of their formal statements, then you really
>>> had no factual basis for condemning Wikipedia for its article
>>
>>Hence it sure is a good thing that I didn't condemn Wikipedia over that
>>article -- as I mentioned in the posr above, though with a foolishly
>>idealistic notion that in pointing it out, I was beloaboring the obvious.
>
> ---
> Somehow,
>
> "The text that happens to reside in a WIkipedia article at any given
> time is, sadly enough, not an authority anyone could rely on."
>
> sounds, to me, somewhat like a blanket condemnation since you cast
> aspersions on Wikipedia not only regarding the veracity of the article
> in question, but also extended that condemnation to all of their
> extant text.
> ---
>
>>> And why the crack about "sources" and "authoritative?"
>>>
>>> Hardly necessary unless you intended them as insults, yes?
>>>
>>> JF
>>
>>Indeed, when I accuse someone of not understanding these concepts in the
>>context of a supposedly serious discussion of history, I am without doubt
>>making an unfavorable comment. It would be objectively a good thing if I
>>were shown to be wrong, but I suppose the angels have given up hope on
>>that.
>
> ---
> Perhaps the Angels have given up hope on you entirely.
>
> My point wasn't whether you were right or wrong about my being right
> or wrong, it was about your delivery, which was unnecessarily
> confrontational if, in fact, you were interested in serious
> discussion.
>
> JF
Actually, without of course admitting blame or liability, I'll have to
claim that the weather here is just too hot, and, as you say, ill-advised
things were synthesized from the hot dilute soup on my keyboard. I'm
taking steps to prevent a recurrence.
Pax?
