> In article ,
>
>
>
>  doug xx.com> wrote:

>> Michael Press wrote:

>

>>> In article ,
>>>  "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote:

>

>>>>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 04:39:19 UTC, Michael Press pacbell.net> wrote:

>

>>>>>In article
>>>>>d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> chazwin yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>On Sep 4, 4:17 pm, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>On Sep 3, 4:41 pm, "Dan Drake" dandrake.com> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 21:59:25 UTC, z snail-mail.net> wrote:

>

>>>>>>>>>>If anyone wants to know a bit more about the development of the work of
>>>>>>>>>>Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo it's well worth finding the Koestler book.- Hide quoted text -

>

>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -

>

>>>>>>>>>according to an article by arthur c clarke, galileo couldn't resist
>>>>>>>>>insulting the officials. i don't know if he's right or not,  but he
>>>>>>>>>deserves the benefit of the doubt.

>

>>>>>>>>Which "he" is the one who deserves the benefit of the doubt here? The
>>>>>>>>honored historical figure, or the writer expressing an opinion about him?
>>>>>>>>(Surely not actual historians, who don't rate a mention.) One way of
>>>>>>>>reducing the doubt would be to read what Galileo wrote. Then you could
>>>>>>>>come back with, let's say, three clear instances of his insulting the
>>>>>>>>officials.

>

>>>>>>>>The first, I know, will be the big famous one, which is actually false or
>>>>>>>>at least an unfounded charge. I'm curious to see what the other two will
>>>>>>>>be.

>

>>>>>>>Galileo was trying to advance his own views at the expense of those
>>>>>>>with more power than he had.  This does tend to get one into
>>>>>>>difficulties, in general, unless your evidence is overwhelming --
>>>>>>>which Galileo's was not, at the time.  He was able to challenge the
>>>>>>>existing system, not establish a new one, as Newton did.

>

>>>>>>Newton was just one more link in the chain of reason. The heliocentric
>>>>>>system already made mush more sense at the time of Kepler and Galileo.
>>>>>>All Newton was to do was to describe it all mathematically from a
>>>>>>suggestion made by Robert Hooke.
>>>>>>Of the 2 systems available the heliocentric one was far and away the
>>>>>>most elegant and simple. The church's objections were never scientific
>>>>>>but psychological. Psychological in two ways: first, was that it was
>>>>>>thought that "divinely inspired" ideology should and could not be
>>>>>>wrong; any gainsaying of church dogma was "heretical", and secondly
>>>>>>the heliocentric hypothesis moved the earth away from its special
>>>>>>position at the centre of a relatively small universe to a subordinate
>>>>>>position which (with the evidential lack of stellar parallax evidence)
>>>>>>expanded the distance to the nearest star to unimaginable distances.

>

>>>>>Or it could be the RCC entered into a contract where they paid
>>>>>Copernicus to develop a method to calculate the date of Easter.
>>>>>Copernicus delivered a correct, easily calculated method. Implicit in,
>>>>>but not necessary to, his method is a heliocentric model. Since
>>>>>the project was funded by the RCC, they contended that they had
>>>>>the rights; and prosecuted those who used it without permission.

>

>>>>The Intellectual Property theory. Oh joy, warring sect appears over the
>>>>horizon! Write a book, and you could get some people believing it.

>

>>> Intellectual property is a contentious matter today. Why not then?

>

>>> Or maybe Galileo was not taken to task for his work with the telescope,
>>> but rather his work with the microscope.

>

>> You do know that there are history books where you can look things up
>> don't you?

>
> Many, many history books. And they too often contradict one another
> to be useful to anyone except those who immerse themselves and know
> them all. It seems to me that historians are always slagging each
> other off, and I do not have a score card. Whom do I believe? You?
>
> --
> Michael Press