theory and prediction

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

If you're going to be precise - Galileo was found guilty of violating a disciplinary injunction. He was not (AFAICS) found guilty of heresy. He was not anathematised, excommunicated or barred from sacramental participation in the Church. In what sense, then, do you say that the Church "condemned" him?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
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.

His views and those of Copernicius on astronomical matters were also "condemned"; they were put on the list of banned books. Galileo's (incorrect) view that the Sun was the center of the universe was declared "heretical" in 1616; heresy could (and occasionally did)get you the death sentence. Let's be precise; Galileo was imprisoned for violating a Church injunction (there is some dispute whether it existed in 1616 or was added later to the file) that forbade him from teaching or writing about his astronomical theories, not for "meddling in theology".

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I'm not so sure; look at Darwin, he "stuck to science" yet has many "theoists" up in arms. ...

Darwin's position was based on a philosophy as much as science.

Everyone has a "word-view" that effects how they interpret the data. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is acknowledged. Darwin's view presupposed there is not god - and his interpretation of the data reflects that position.

Darwin's interpretation was strongly influenced by his world-view. Based on the scant data he had at the time, his theory was the best he could come up with given his presuppositions. But saying he stuck to science would be to say he let the facts interpret themselves. Even if that were possible, it was not true for Darwin.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you're going to be precise - Galileo was found guilty of violating a disciplinary injunction. He was not (AFAICS) found guilty of heresy. He was not anathematised, excommunicated or barred from sacramental participation in the Ch ...[text shortened]... In what sense, then, do you say that the Church "condemned" him?

From the sentence of Galileo:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in


The only reason Galileo avoided a conviction for heresy and a possible death sentence is that he recanted and stated he believed in the Ptolemic system with the earth the immovable center of the "world". This information is all on the site I previously gave; why Lucifershammer continues to speak such half-truths when he has been directed to the source documents themselves, I have no idea.

EDIT: The entire sentence is at: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html it puts the lie to Lucifershammer's assertion that Galileo was punished for "meddling in theology"; the sentence is based entirely on his exposition of his scientific theories.

Originally posted by Coletti
Darwin's position was based on a philosophy as much as science.

Everyone has a "word-view" that effects how they interpret the data. I don't have a problem with that as long as it is acknowledged. Darwin's view presupposed there is not god - and his interpretation of the data reflects that position.

Darwin's interpretation was strongly influe ...[text shortened]... e let the facts interpret themselves. Even if that were possible, it was not true for Darwin.

Darwin had enough data to come to the conclusion that separation in environments caused speciation. That's his contribution to the theory of evolution: a theory that he didn't start I might add.

in fact , I did add , since people have this strange idea that Darwin made the theory up out of whole cloth.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Darwin had enough data to come to the conclusion that separation in environments caused speciation. That's his contribution to the theory of evolution: a theory that he didn't start I might add.

in fact , I did add , since people have this strange idea that Darwin made the theory up out of whole cloth.

I agree with you there. If Darwin hadn't come up the TOE, someone else would have very shortly. There were philosophical changes occurring in the sciences in his time - a desire to remove God from consideration when understanding the natural world. Darwin just got his works published before his competitors.

Originally posted by Coletti
There were philosophical changes occurring in the sciences in his time - a desire to remove God from consideration when understanding the natural world. Darwin just got his works published before his competitors.

yes and no

There were indeed many changes in the intellectual life of Europe, but characterizing it as "a desire to remove God from consideration" is a terribly distorted summary. It is true that the growth of secular instutions of knowledge and research after the eigthteenth century made possible many things that would have been impossible under a theocentric episteme, but it was more an effort to be free of relgious dogma and dogmatists than to exclude considerations of the divine.

Darwin did not publish first; in fact, he waited until he received an essay on matters of evolution from Alfred Russel Wallace that he submitted Wallace essay and some of his own writings to the Linnean Society--these joint papers were the first publication of Darwin's core idea regarding natural selection.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
In what sense, then, do you say that the Church "condemned" him?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

In the sense that they issued the above condemnation and in the sense that they say to Galileo, "We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure."

What arrogance is displayed by that entire document!

And I thought you told me it was the state, not the church, that carried out the Inquisition's sentences and imprisoned the condemned. Was that a falsehood?

Originally posted by Coletti
I agree with you there. If Darwin hadn't come up the TOE, someone else would have very shortly. There were philosophical changes occurring in the sciences in his time - a desire to remove God from consideration when understanding the natural world. Darwin just got his works published before his competitors.

Or, said another way, science advanced to a point where some models of nature based on traditional views were called into question.
I don't think that a "desire to remove God" had anything to do with what Galileo caught through his telescope or what Newton saw or Darwin observed.

Originally posted by Coletti
I agree with you there. If Darwin hadn't come up the TOE, someone else would have very shortly. There were philosophical changes occurring in the sciences in his time - a desire to remove God from consideration when understanding the natural world. Darwin just got his works published before his competitors.

before you agree any more read this

Charles Darwin wrote in 1861:
Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801. . . he first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all changes in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition

didnt exactly invent the TOE out of whole cloth

Originally posted by no1marauder
From the sentence of Galileo:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and ...[text shortened]... ng in theology"; the sentence is based entirely on his exposition of his scientific theories.

From the same document:

"Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it, by glossing the said Scriptures according to your own meaning"

See the part in bold.

I'll accept I was wrong about the injunction being [solely] due to his theology-meddling (though I still maintain he would've avoided punishment if he'd stuck to science). Will you accept you were wrong in your implication that his scientific theories were the sole reason for his sentence (in 1616)?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html

In the sense that they issued the above condemnation and in the sense that they say to Galileo, "We condemn you to formal imprisonment in this Holy Office at our pleasure."

What arrogance is displayed by that entire document!

And I thought you told me it was the s ...[text shortened]... ried out the Inquisition's sentences and imprisoned the condemned. Was that a falsehood?

Don't twist my words. My statement referred to the Spanish Inquisition - I clearly said I wasn't sure about the Roman Inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

"The Inquisition, as a religious court, was operated by Church authorities; however, if a person was found to be heretical, they were turned over to the secular authorities to be punished. "

I suppose it was guessable that the Roman Inquisition would actually possess the authority to punish people found guilty because the Church was also the government of Rome.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Don't twist my words. My statement referred to the Spanish Inquisition - I clearly said I wasn't sure about the Roman Inquisition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition

"The Inquisition, as a religious court, was ...[text shortened]... e found guilty because the Church was also the government of Rome.

Besides the issue of intimidation scientists, don't you find killing people that don't agree with a religion or any belief system a bit on the evil side.
Is there really any difference between the church killing heretics and Communists killing revisionists?

A very long time ago a philosopher said " An evil is always an evil" .

Having secular power sometimes requires using evil to fight EVIL*, and this requirement of the state corrupts any church that has secular power.

Christ was not joking when he said " My Kingdom is not of this Earth"
* caps to avoid a 4 term misconception

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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 Clemen ...[text shortened]... tyr for science is, IMO, a little misguided.

Btw, what does Maxwell have to do with anything?

Gallileo could have quite easily have inferred it , since he had been threatened with death too.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Besides the issue of intimidation scientists, don't you find killing people that don't agree with a religion or any belief system a bit on the evil side.
Is there really any difference between the church killing heretics and Communists killing revisionists?

A very long time ago a philosopher said " An evil is always an evil" .
...[text shortened]... en he said " My Kingdom is not of this Earth"
* caps to avoid a 4 term misconception

It's easy for us in the 21st century to look back and judge the actions of those in the past. I bet most parents in the 1950s would've looked at me strangely if I told them that spanking could get them jailed some day.

To answer your question - yes, I think killing people that don't agree with one's belief system is evil. However, that is politics. One of the most enduring ideas in human political thought is the idea that the most stable political entity is one where the populace share the same belief system.