| Re: What if: the Church had NOT condemned Galileo |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Pop FlyPop Fly Date: Sep 3, 2008 17:37
On Sep 3, 3:25Â am, "Androcles" wrote:
> "Pop Fly" gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e27b1c59-aec1-4c74-b19a-d3bef1a47e84@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Galileo did have proof. He did not have a theory of gravitational
> force complete with math equations that explained WHY the earth and
> planets circled the sun, but he had a long history of exact observed
> positions of the planets that showed they DID circle the sun. He could
> show that the positions required bizarre and unlikely circles within
> circles if the sun orbited the earth, but were better explained by
> simple orbits with the earth orbiting the sun.
> =============================================
> Those unlikely  wheels within wheels were already "established science"
> since Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemeus)
> Â http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Ptolemy.html
> therefore Copernicus (not Galileo) did not have PROOF. What he did
> have was an application of Ockham's Razor.
> Â http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
I acknowledge the difference. I still believe the cardinals should
have bowed to the evidence. Science needs men like Copernicus who can
pull raw data together to create theories (useful information), but it
needs raw data much, much more. It's all about observing and believing
what the real world shows. Otherwise we would still believe, like
Aristotle, that there are only 4 elements; and that the world was
created 6000 years ago. In both these cases, the truth is much more
complex and exciting, and only revealed by the details.
Interesting. But I must admit there's not enough evidence here to make
me doubt what so many have believed for so long while they tested it
with so much evidence, even though I'm not conversant enough with the
details to explain why their theory is better than yours.
| 
