On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:23:41 UTC, Corr Edwards
glmaill.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Sep, 01:06, Corr Edwards
glmaill.com> wrote:
>> >>>>On 2 Sep, 23:24, OG
gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:>>>
>>>>>This bit of the discussion is whether the Church condemned Galileo
>>>>>through its intolerance of new ideas. The evidence presented by
>>>>>Koestler suggests that the intolerance was at least as much with Galileo
>>>>>as with the Church.
>>>
>>>>I'd like to see that "evidence".
>>>
>>>Arthur Koestler "The Sleepwalkers".
>>
>>
>> Sounds a bit circular, doesn't it?
>
> I was suggesting that if you read the book you will be able to read the
> references (to the evidence).
>
>>>>"The senior church leaders were initially very receptive to Galileo's
>>>>ideas, but in his arrogance he decided that he should have the right
>>>>to lead discussion on spiritual issues as well as physical matters."
>>>
>>>>That is rather the accusation.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure what you mean by that
>>
>>
>> "Accusation" = that is what he was accused of, not evidence supporting
>> that accusation. I've not read Koestler, I am simply saying you are
>> showing the accusation statement (what he was brought to trial for),
>> not the evidence supporting that accusation (the proofs produced in
>> the court).
>
> I'm doing neither. He was not tried with a charge of 'being arrogant and
> insulting church leades', but being arrogant and insulting church
> leaders was why he was brought to trial.
>
>>>but read the book and see.
>>
>>
>> I'm Italian. I've alreay seen enough.
>
> "The Sleepwalkers" is extensively annotated with references to the
> primary evidence.
And thoroughly debunked by actual historians of science. Citation in
another post on this thread. The fact that a popular novelist puts the
full weight of his authority behind a position does not in fact prove it
true, despite footnotes and skilled writing. But it does assure that the
position gets much more publicity than those of people who spend full time
on the subject and publish in peer-reviewed journals.
