On Sep 10, 3:42Â pm, "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote:> On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 00:12:10 UTC, "OG"
gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
>>> "Dan Drake"
dandrake.com> wrote in message
>> news:vhIsdqY67dTD-pn2-84grKLeK6VOs@m...>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 20:47:05 UTC, Jerry Kraus
yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:>
>>>> On Sep 6, 3:56Ëœpm, doug
xx.com> wrote:>>>>> Jerry Kraus wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 5, 6:51 pm, Michael Press
pacbell.net> wrote:>
>
>>>>>>>>Oh, certainly, I agree the Church's objections were psychological --
>>>>>>>>or, shall we say, socio-psychological. ˜ ˜They feared social
>>>>>>>>disruption from crticism of the current conception of things without
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>comprehensive alternative being presented. ËœAs for Newton being just
>>>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>>"link in the chain", Newton's Principia is a pretty big link! ËœAnd,
>>>>>>>>probably the final one. ËœA truly comprenhensive system of things to
>>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>>put alongside Thomas Aquinas' work. ËœI doubt Galileo was capable of
>>>>>>>>work of this type, I suspect he was more of an engineer than a
>>>>>>>>scientist. ËœAnd, he got out of his depth, to his cost.
>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Michael Press
>
>>>>>>>Galileo's work with the inclined plane alone
>>>>>>>qualifies him as a great scientist.
>
>>>>>> Galileo may have been a great scientist. ËœHe was not a great
>>>>>> theoretician. ˜ Which may have been what was bothering the Church
>>>>>> authorities.
>
>>>>> This has got to be one of the all time unbelievably silly statements
>>>>> even for usenet.
>
>>>>> ˜ He was not providing a comprehensive theoretical
>
>>>>>> alternative to Aristotle's ideas, which had been integrated with
>>>>>> Catholic theology by Thomas Aquinas.
>
>>>>> He was presenting an idea that the church did not like because
>>>>> it threatened their control.
>
>>>>> ˜ ˜Newton's work did. ˜Galileo was
>
>>>>>> ridiculing the existing theoretical conception while providing no
>>>>>> alternative to it.
>
>>>>> Presenting facts is not ridiculing. It is called science.
>
>>>>> - Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>>> Presenting facts is not ridiculing. Â Calling the Pope a fool in print
>>>> is. Â This is exactly what Galileo did. Â This is what got him into
>>>> trouble.
>
>>> Umm, would you be interested in replying to any of the posts in which I
>>> have noted that this is false? And maybe support your argument, as I
>>> supported mine? We could even have a useful debate.
>
>> I? we?
>> You have 'asserted' that it is false - your 'noting' of  a position  is not
>> strictly 'falsification' - notwithatanding what yhur brother may once have
>> thought.
>
> You have noticed, of course, that falsifying "this took place once" is
> different in kind from falsifying "this never took place". If we were
> silly enough to be utterly pure falsificationists, the burden of
> falsifying my negative assertion would be on you. Negatives can be proved
> in mathematics, but not in empirical matters except by exhaustion.
>
> But of course we're not as silly as that; the real issue is whether my
> claims are too nonsensical to worth answering. Your position is backed by
> a famous novelist; mine by historians of science. The side "too weak to
> bother answering" isn't actually my side.
>
> Again, there is no historical evidence whatever of an intent on Galileo's
> part to insult the Pope, except an assertion by the Inquisition. If you
> knew of any, you might condescend to tell us of it rather than debating
> epistemology.
>
> --
> Dan Drake
> d...@
dandrake.comhttp://www.dandrake.com/
>
porlockjr.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and
against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate
heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the
matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those
requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate,
Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in
his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy
book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the
Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of
Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree
Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction
to his book.[80] However, the Pope did not take the suspected public
ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of
his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to
Rome to defend his writings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
"Simplicius" means simpler, stupider, dumber, by the way.
Whether Galileo intended to insult the Pope, or simply was tactless
and foolish enough to insult the Pope, is a moot point. Clearly,
Galileo insulted the Pope.
