28 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy is it BS? Somebody had to be the first priest. Why not Lorini?
LH: The fact that it's mentioned as significant does not imply it was public. It's significant because Lorini was the first priest to attack Galileo.
Are you serious????????? It is your assertion that NO PRIEST attacked Galileo and heliocentricism even in private until Lorini in 1612???????? The BS you spout is absolutely incredible.
And why 1612? Because it was in the Fall of 1612 that Galileo's letters on sunspots were published by the Lincean Academy (C.f. Timeline on Rice).
28 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou continue to adopt a standard of "proof" that dj2becker would be proud of. Any scientific theory, including Newton's and Einstein's, could have been declared heresy using this standard.
[b]Well, your Pope did.
I had to look this up. Turns out he was he was just reading aloud from agnostic-skeptic philosopher Feyerabend's book:
http://www.galilean-library.org/blog/?p=76
[b/]Please name one other scientific theory ever declared heresy by the RCC. Please name one other scientist asked to submit proof of his theories or have t rocket science to figure out that, sooner or later, someone was going to call his bluff.[/b]
More personal attacks on Galileo. Sickening.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're ridiculous and I think you know it.
Why is it BS? Somebody had to be the first priest. Why not Lorini?
And why 1612? Because it was in the Fall of 1612 that Galileo's letters on sunspots were published by the Lincean Academy (C.f. Timeline on Rice).
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderHooke (himself a heliocentrist) was talking about more than "vestiges". Besides, 1674 is the age of the Royal Society, Newton, Hooke, Wren and Halley - hardly the time (in England) for Biblical literalists.
What part of the word "most" is sooooooooooooooooo unclear to you? I suspect that the vestiges of geocentricism in the late 1600's were still primarily based on the (mis)reading of Scripture. The Church wasn't the only ones with Bibles, ya know.
I addressed your last paragraph in my post above.
Why is it so hard to believe that Kepler was just exaggerating in 1597? Two massive egos, congratulating each other's brilliance - is it so hard to believe they thought they had more support in the scientific community than they did?
28 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNot sure what standard of proof you're talking about.
You continue to adopt a standard of "proof" that dj2becker would be proud of. Any scientific theory, including Newton's and Einstein's, could have been declared heresy using this standard.
More personal attacks on Galileo. Sickening.
As to attacks on Galileo - do you deny that he was insulting his critics in his letters? Do you deny he claimed to have definitive proof of his heliocentrism in his letters?
Then what's the problem in his critics asking to see his proof? He's a scientist, isn't he?
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you admit that your UMKC website got its year (I'll grant the All Soul's Day date) wrong? Or are you going to get independent corroboration that it was a "PUBLIC" attack?
You're ridiculous and I think you know it.
Because, at the moment, there is no evidence it was a public attack.
28 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're an idiot. Dominican Ludovico Delle Colombe published Against the Earth's Motion, an attack on Galileo's theories in late 1610 or 1611. So your claim that the Lorini attack was the first by a priest on Galileo and his theories is clearly WRONG.
Do you admit that your UMKC website got its year (I'll grant the All Soul's Day date) wrong? Or are you going to get independent corroboration that it was a "PUBLIC" attack?
Because, at the moment, there is no evidence it was a public attack.
No, I admit no such thing. The most logical conclusion has been already stated; that Lorini made private attacks in 1612 and a public one in the All Soul's Day mass in November 1613. That interpretation of the various sources makes that all consistent and none "wrong".
BTW, regarding Brahe "Galileo made the first European observations of sunspots, although there is evidence that Chinese astronomers had done so before him. The very existence of sunspots showed another difficulty with the perfection of the heavens as assumed in the older philosophy. And the annual variations in their motions, first noticed by Francesco Sizzi, presented great difficulties for either the geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe."
from Wikipedia and a bunch of other sites.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThanks for the link on the Ratzinger quote; you obviously didn't read the whole article. The author answers your point:
Not sure what standard of proof you're talking about.
As to attacks on Galileo - do you deny that he was insulting his critics in his letters? Do you deny he claimed to have definitive proof of his heliocentrism in his letters?
Then what's the problem in his critics asking to see his proof? He's a scientist, isn't he?
but the basic point is that the interpretive principle arrived at by Bellarmine in his Letter to Foscarini rendered any thought of development in the Church’s attitude towards heliocentrism or geokineticism impossible due to his insistence that the Bible passages ostensibly contradicting either were to be considered a matter of faith ex parte dicentis. Feyerabend appears to have been unaware of this, given that he remarked that Ratzinger’s position was “similar” to Bellarmine’s when instead only the instrumentalism of the early parts of Bellarmine’s letter are supported by his caution, not the later declaration that all Scriptural passages are authored by the Holy Spirit (with its consequences). Both Feyerabend and Ratzinger were mistaken on this issue, then, since calling this approach - leading invariably to stagnation in astronomy and physics, as Galileo and senior Jesuits like Grienberger foresaw - more rational than Galileo’s is absurd. Like most others who have come into contact with the Galileo Affair, they have simplified the events to fit their own preconceptions.
QED.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerMore personal attacks but with Kepler thrown in, too! Kepler's letter is the only contemporaneous account I can find on the web which suggests the level of support for heliocentricism v. geocentricism in the period discussed. Until you present SOME contemporaneous proof to the contrary, I'd say Kepler was in a better position to judge the support each theory had among "mathematicians" in 1597 than you are in 2006.
Hooke (himself a heliocentrist) was talking about more than "vestiges". Besides, 1674 is the age of the Royal Society, Newton, Hooke, Wren and Halley - hardly the time (in England) for Biblical literalists.
Why is it so hard to believe that Kepler was just exaggerating in 1597? Two massive egos, congratulating each other's brilliance - is it so hard to believe they thought they had more support in the scientific community than they did?
28 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSorry, I am going off on a tangent here, but the word "sunspots" caught my attention...
BTW, regarding Brahe "Galileo made the first European observations of sunspots, although there is evidence that Chinese astronomers had done so before him. The very existence of sunspots showed another difficulty with the perfection of the heavens as assumed in the older philosophy. And the annual variations in their motions, first noticed by Francesco Sizzi, presented great difficulties for either the geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe."
Actually the earliest known observation of sunspots was around the year 350 BC by Theophrastus of Athens. The reports from China and other East-Asian countries started later, near 165 BC. Most likely none of those reports were known in Europe during Galileo's lifetime, though. Johannes Fabricius discovered the sunspots and identified them as originating on the Sun at about the same time as Galileo (end of 1610 or early 1611). Christoph Scheiner, a Jesuit priest, also started observing sunspots at about the same time, although he first didn't attribute them to the Sun itself, as this would have been against the Aristotelean theory that the Sun was perfect and unblemished.
28 Feb 06
BTW, here's the next sentence after the Hooke quote given by you on page 10:
The more knowing and judicious have for many plausible reasons adhered to the Copernican Hypothesis: But the generality of others, either out of ignorance or prejudice, have rejected it as a most extravagant opinion.
Solid support for your argument there, sport. Did you deliberately leave this part out or get the first quote from a second hand source?
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderShow me one source that says it was a "PUBLIC" attack.
You're an idiot. Dominican Ludovico Delle Colombe published Against the Earth's Motion, an attack on Galileo's theories in late 1610 or 1611. So your claim that the Lorini attack was the first by a priest on Galileo and his theories is clearly WRONG.
No, I admit no such thing. The most logical conclusion has been already stated; that Lorini mad ...[text shortened]... geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe."
from Wikipedia and a bunch of other sites.
Colombe's objections were, IIRC, philosophical and scientific. He was not speaking in his capacity as a priest; i.e. a teacher of the faith.
28 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf Kepler was correct, then there was widespread support for heliocentrism in the scientific community for unscientific reasons (Kepler's own motivation was mystical).
More personal attacks but with Kepler thrown in, too! Kepler's letter is the only contemporaneous account I can find on the web which suggests the level of support for heliocentricism v. geocentricism in the period discussed. Until you present SOME contemporaneous proof to the contrary, I'd say Kepler was in a better position to judge the support each theory had among "mathematicians" in 1597 than you are in 2006.
28 Feb 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI deliberately left it out as it was irrelevant to my argument. My point is about the level of opposition within scientific circles to heliocentrism (as philosophical truth). Whether Hooke thinks his opponents are idiots is irrelevant - the fact is he went out of his way to try and prove heliocentrism (by discovering stellar parallax) to them. Why would he do that if the issue were already settled by 1674?
BTW, here's the next sentence after the Hooke quote given by you on page 10:
The more knowing and judicious have for many plausible reasons adhered to the Copernican Hypothesis: But the generality of others, either out of ignorance or prejudice, have rejected it as a most extravagant opinion.
Solid support for your argument there, sport. Did you deliberately leave this part out or get the first quote from a second hand source?
