theory and prediction

Originally posted by frogstomp
1) there where at least 4 models ,, Brunos and they killed him.
2) and fit the churches dictation
3) he was chicken that didn't wanna be Roasted
4) Copernicus was a devout monk that didn't publish his work.
5) Tycho Brahe was trying to appease the church.
6) the history of science it filled with cases of Theory ...[text shortened]... ior to that of earth... that was enough for him ,, and is still enough proof all by itself.

1. Bruno wasn't killed for his cosmology, but for his theological views.
2. That's irrelevant to the scientific merits of his theory.
3. Ditto.
4. Ditto.
5. Ditto.
6. The point is that Galileo claimed his system was superior but couldn't demonstrate it. He should've done what any scientist would've done - accept his theory was just a hypothesis until the evidence came along.
7. Not really. Even his most ardent supporters thought it was rubbish.
8. It's more than the same idea. Had he used elliptical orbits, he would've done away with epicycles altogether and could claim that his model was simpler (hence, in a sense, more superior) to Brahe's.

8. I don't think the inquisition is part of the scientific method. Nor, for that matter, is scientists meddling in theology.

9. I'm not going to attack Bruno. But the point has to be made that he wasn't burnt for his cosmology, his defence of Copernicanism or even his doctrine of the plurality of inhabited worlds. What he was convicted of was holding heretical theological notions - neo-Arianism, Latin Averroism, the Holy Spirit being the soul of the world (pantheism?), the salvation of the Devil etc.

10. Actually no - the phases of Venus were explained by the Tychonian model as well; so it wasn't "enough proof". It might have been enough for him, but that isn't sufficient to make it true or superior to Tycho's theory.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Geez, this thread has evolved into, dare I say it, predictable directions.

I began this thread with two simple questions:
What aspect of creationist theory was able to predict the existence of archaebacteria?
What new frontiers in microbiology are pioneered by creation scientists?

I asked these questions because they occurred to me during a debate in ...[text shortened]... at movie is all the reason I need for clinging to evolutionary theory, but it is not all I have!

Unfortunately, yes.

Nevertheless, the current discussion is quite fascinating.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Bruno wasn't killed for his cosmology, but for his theological views.
2. That's irrelevant to the scientific merits of his theory.
3. Ditto.
4. Ditto.
5. Ditto.
6. The point is that Galileo claimed his system was superior ...[text shortened]... isn't sufficient to make it true or superior to Tycho's theory.

1) you dont know that,,since the charges were lost.
2) but not irrevelevant to the interfence in science by the Inquisition
3 4 & 5
6) his " theory " was that venus was in an interior orbit
no amount of rationalization can change that. and the phases of venus are fact in any explanation of the solar system to this very day.
7) maybe the church would have liked to have threatened James Clerk Maxwell too
8) have you read Genesis? most of that drivel is meddling in science,,,,albeit stolen from the Sumerian sky watchers ( astronomers)
9) ,,,,they killed him and "lost" the records. what ever you say was the reason, is merely speculation,,,however Gallieo could not have been anything but imtimidated by the factof it.
10) did the church threaten Brahe with Death?

how much more science was suppressed we'll never know.

you are right science should stay outta theology,,,, science should only deal with reality

Originally posted by bbarr
There is so much confusion in this post that it is hard to know where to begin. Declarative sentences like 'God exists' have what is called propositional content. The propositional content of the declarative sentence 'God exists' is the proposition God exists. The declarative sentence 'God exists' is true if and only if the propositional conten ...[text shortened]... To do otherwise is to sheer madness and an affront to both logic and the philosophy of language!

Sorry I confused you.

"In order to determine any of this, one must start with some notion of God. One must determine the reference of the term 'God'. This has to be done before one goes about asserting that 'God exists'."

Are you not saying one must explain what one means by God? For all I know, God might mean a purple kangaroo to frogstomp. So without defining God, saying God exists is pointless. Sure he exists, but frogstomp's God may only exist in his imagination.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
While we're at it, let's discuss the scientific merits of Galileo's theory:

1. At the time Galileo threw his weight behind the Copernican model, there were three cosmological models - the Ptolemaic, the Tychonian and the Copernican. The first two were geocentric, the last heliocentric.
2. The Ptolemaic model held that the Earth was the c ...[text shortened]... ion of the earth) was true was accidental since he could not provide the justification required.

This is all besides the point; the scientific merits of Galileo's theory are not at issue. The issue is that the Church threatened him with torture and death and then banned his books because he presented a theory that the Church didn't like. They didn't go out and write up their own pamphets to prove his theory wrong like scientists do; they imprisoned and silenced him. And you haven't produced a single shred of proof that Galileo "meddled in theology"; all you've proven is that the Church meddled (in a vicious and cruel way) in science. I presume you're one of the ultra-conservatives who didn't like that John Paul II repudiated the sentence of the Church in the Galileo matter in 1992; I've been trying to find his speech or letter that did this but I haven't been able to locate it. Do you have a link to this outrageous injustice that pardoned someone who so defiantly "meddled in theology"?

Originally posted by frogstomp
1) you dont know that,,since the charges were lost.
2) but not irrevelevant to the interfence in science by the Inquisition
3 4 & 5
6) his " theory " was that venus was in an interior orbit
no amount of rationalization can change that. and the phases of venus are fact in any explanation of the solar system to this ...[text shortened]... re right science should stay outta theology,,,, science should only deal with reality

You're right - the charges against Bruno were lost. But can one infer from the evidence whether it was Copernicanism that was the primary contributor to his death?

a. Twelve years before his death (1531), Copernicus stated the seven axioms of his heliocentric theory without recrimination.
b. In 1533, Albert Widmanstadt lectured before Pope Clement VII on the Copernican solar system and was rewarded for it.
c. In 1542, Copernicus finally decided to publish his treatise on the advice of well-wishers - including Pope Paul III, Cardinal Schonberg, Bishop Giese etc.
d. Copernicus's tome wasn't put on the Index of Forbidden books till 1616 - till Galileo raised a ruckus about it.

Further, if Bruno was indeed burned for believing in Copernicanism, why was the case against Galileo rejected by the Holy Office in 1616? The precedent was there.

Bruno's theology, OTOH, was undisputedly heretical. I don't agree that is a crime worth burning someone for, and the incident is truly a shameful one in Church history. Nevertheless, the whole movement to turn Bruno into a martyr for science is, IMO, a little misguided.

Btw, what does Maxwell have to do with anything?

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is all besides the point; the scientific merits of Galileo's theory are not at issue. The issue is that the Church threatened him with torture and death and then banned his books because he presented a theory that the Chu ...[text shortened]... ce that pardoned someone who so defiantly "meddled in theology"?

Did you even read my previous post? Galileo had no cause to go into a theological discourse in his 1613 letter. That was meddling in theology.

PS - Here's the link you wanted. It's in Italian. I'm still looking for an English translation.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1992/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19921031_accademia-scienze_it.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Galileo had no cause to go into a theological discourse in his 1613 letter. That was meddling in theology.

So, who in your opinion has the right to "meddle" in theology?

Do you?

Do priests?

Does the pope?

Do modern scientists?

What about the rest of us here in Spirituality?

What constitutes just cause to go into theological discourse?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
So, who in your opinion has the right to "meddle" in theology?

Do you?

Do priests?

Does the pope?

Do modern scientists?

What about the rest of us here in Spirituality?

I don't disagree that Galileo had the right to dabble in theology. I also don't disagree that the Inquisition was wrong to imprison him. What I'm arguing is a point of fact - Galileo did not stick to science, but also entered the field of theology. It was the latter that precipitated the whole affair. I have strong reason to believe that, had Galileo stuck to the science, he would never have found himself in the situation he did.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't disagree that Galileo had the right to dabble in theology. I also don't disagree that the Inquisition was wrong to imprison him. What I'm arguing is a point of fact - Galileo did not stick to science, but also entered the field of theology. It was the latter that precipitated the whole affair. I have strong reason to believe that, had Galileo stuck to the science, he would never have found himself in the situation he did.

I understand that the Inquisition to this day still operates as an office of the Church. Do you suppose that if prominent and controversial scientists today started to meddle in theology that the Inquisition would imprison or condemn them?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't disagree that Galileo had the right to dabble in theology. I also don't disagree that the Inquisition was wrong to imprison him. What I'm arguing is a point of fact - Galileo did not stick to science, but also entered the field of theology. It was the latter that precipitated the whole affair. I have strong reason to believe that, had Galileo stuck to the science, he would never have found himself in the situation he did.

I'm not so sure; look at Darwin, he "stuck to science" yet has many "theoists" up in arms. I wonder what would have happened to him if he had made his observations about the time of Galileo?

Originally posted by frogstomp
you ask two questions the creationists didnt like , so attacking evolution and science it what you were answered with.
I myself think creationism is junk science and doesnt explain diddly squat.
check out the debate on Endogenous retroviruses:


http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses#ERVs_and_Evolution

and ,,
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Endogenous_retroviruses#Creationist_Replies

Your two links go to the same page.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I don't disagree that Galileo had the right to dabble in theology. I also don't disagree that the Inquisition was wrong to imprison him. What I'm arguing is a point of fact - Galileo did not stick to science, but also entered the ...[text shortened]... cience, he would never have found himself in the situation he did.

That's utter nonsense. Church officials were saying that his theories violated Scripture; he defended his theories by saying they did not. How, even in your warped view, is that "meddling in theology"? Galileo case was not rejeted by the Holy Office in 1615"; he was apparently ordered not to teach or write about his Copernician based theories under pain of torture and death. Your speculations are totally at odds with the facts of the case; it is certain that the Inquistion took an active interest in Galileo's theories in 1615 and the injunction that was apparently given banned him from writing about the Earth moving and other astronomical matters; there was nothing at all about his Scriptural interpretation technique which I believe is the same as yours and the present day Church! You also ignore that Galileo's observations of Jupiter's moons and other astronomical matters lent strong support to the Copernician model which had previously been lacking; thus he was strongly supporting a theory that literal reading of Scripture made heretical. And to top it off, a lot of religious and political water had passed over the bridge from 1530 to 1615; can you say Protestant Reformation? The Church in 1615 was not going to be tolerant of someone who publicly supported a scientific theory that violated Church doctrine. These are all historical facts and your "interpretation" is outright baloney.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I understand that the Inquisition to this day still operates as an office of the Church. Do you suppose that if prominent and controversial scientists today started to meddle in theology that the Inquisition would imprison or condemn them?

Depends on their theological views.

If the views contradict Church teaching then, yes, I expect those views would be condemned.

No, I don't think they will be imprisoned in the modern world. I'm not sure about the Roman Inquisition, but the Spanish Inquisition did not have the authority to execute a sentence. The function of the latter was to investigate and judge whether a heresy had been taught. Incarceration and punishment were left to the civil authorities.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Depends on their theological views.

If the views contradict Church teaching then, yes, I expect those views would be condemned.

Let's be precise. It was Galileo himself who was condemned, not his views. That's why Galileo recently received a post mortem pardon. His views did not receive the pardon.

I'd like to know if you think the modern Inquisition might ever condemn a scientist.