Originally posted by no1marauderAppeal to Authority Fallacy 101:
You continue to make the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Don't waste my time further with your ridiculous "some people agree with me" rubbish; take from their "expert" writings some actual historical facts that support their conclusions.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious...
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question...
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise...
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question...
4. The person in question is not significantly biased...
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline...
6. The authority in question must be identified...
At least know something about the Appeal to Authority Fallacy before claiming I make it.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhen I get a fact wrong, I'll let ya know:
Here's your timeline chart again:
http://galileo.rice.edu/chron/galileo.html
The only mention of Lorini is in the entry for February 1615:
[quote]A Dominican friar Niccolo Lorini, who had earlier criticized Galileo's view [b]in private conversations, files a written complaint with the Inquisition against Galileo's Copernican views. He enclose ...[text shortened]... h means he did not come up with those arguments in response to his Inquisition charges.[/b]
November 1613 Father Lorini of Florence, a professor of ecclesiastical history, launches the first attack from the clergy on the Copernican theory.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html
The attack consisted of saying it was heresy.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou have and continue to make it. A judgment on a historical occurrence requires no special expertise. If your "experts" have marshalled sufficient facts to support their conclusions, you sure haven't produced them.
Appeal to Authority Fallacy 101:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
[quote]An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in q ...[text shortened]... ote]
At least know something about the Appeal to Authority Fallacy before claiming I make it.
EDIT: Your article points out: If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts.
One of your "experts" admits there was disagreement in the field, though for some inexplicable reason he left out a very key fact.
And the article concludes: It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.
Your argument is very similar to the Stalin example, #2.
Originally posted by no1marauderAfter all the stick you give me for "my" experts not being proper historians, you go ahead and cite from a Law School website!
When I get a fact wrong, I'll let ya know:
November 1613 Father Lorini of Florence, a professor of ecclesiastical history, launches the first attack from the clergy on the Copernican theory.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileochronology.html
The attack consisted of saying it was heresy.
Incidentally, your source does not say it was a "PUBLIC" attack.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderno1: "A judgment on a historical occurrence requires no special expertise."
You have and continue to make it. A judgment on a historical occurrence requires no special expertise. If your "experts" have marshalled sufficient facts to support their conclusions, you sure haven't produced them.
EDIT: Your article points out: If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fa l tend to be stronger.
Your argument is very similar to the Stalin example, #2.
I couldn't disagree more. If you're right, then why do we need historians? Why do we hand out PhDs in history? You might think that judging what and why something happened 400 years ago is no different from judging something that happened 4 months ago (as it might in a court trial). To judge a historical event, one must be able to place oneself in the time and place where it happened. One must understand the context, the culture, the general worldview, the language (yes! Just looking at modern translations will not do), the events leading up to that particular event and the significance of those events. Yes, I would contend that these require expertise.
no1: "If your "experts" have marshalled sufficient facts to support their conclusions, you sure haven't produced them."
Not all of it, I admit. But the evidence you cite to support your position works only in a piece-meal, isolated manner. Read them in their proper historical context; if they do not support my views, they do not refute them in the "black and white" manner you claim either.
no1: "Your article points out: If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts."
But there is virtually no dispute that Galileo's heliocentric views, in themselves, were not the primary reason for his trials. This is the position you espouse; this is the position I've appealed to authority to refute. You have failed to respond to that. There is dispute about what was the primary reason, yes, but there is no dispute that it isn't what you claim it is.
Originally posted by no1marauderGood for you.
It's been fun watching you torture history, make fallacious arguments and factual errors and grasp at straws, but I have to go and make random arguments in a court of law. Tootles.
I'm done in this thread. It is clear to me that you intend to consult no authority but yourself in making black and white judgments about an event that happened four centuries ago, has been a pawn in an ideological battle ever since and which most modern historians (whether you recognise their credentials or not) admit is a complex issue and not the simplistic "Church vs. science" legend of popular belief.
I thank you for your time, patience and research. I have provided several references along the way - you probably feel you have no need for them but, if you should ever change your mind, you know where to find them.
Cheers,
LH
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThe case you are presenting is very weak, marauder. The usual Ad Hominems coming from your side only underline this assessment.
It's not an opinion that I've presented historical evidence to support my assertions in this thread; it's a fact with Kepler's letter being the most recent. LH was asked to present evidence supporting what is arguably his central assertion and has failed to do so. That is not an opinion either; it is a fact. You tend to confuse the two believing that man ...[text shortened]... r "thinking" process, at least so far as it is demonstrated by your posts in these forums.
Besides, I told you many moons ago that you were the one confusing facts and opinions ..... and now without any reason for doing so, you suddenly criticise me for doing this. Is this another instance of "Accuse People Of The Wrongdoings You Yourself Are Guilty Of In Order To Get Away With It" ?
Originally posted by lucifershammerAddendum
Good for you.
I'm done in this thread. It is clear to me that you intend to consult no authority but yourself in making black and white judgments about an event that happened four centuries ago, has been a pawn in an ideological battle ever since and which most modern historians (whether you recognise their credentials or not) admit is a complex is ...[text shortened]... them but, if you should ever change your mind, you know where to find them.
Cheers,
LH
Just a few points about my position for the record:
1. I do not claim, nor (as far as I remember) have I ever claimed that the Church was justified in trying Galileo for heresy.
2. The events leading up to his trials (1615 and 1633) are complex and not a simple matter of "dogma vs. science". Making a judgment on these events requires a consideration of many factors - the historical context, language (e.g. 'philosophy', 'hypothesis', 'saving appearances' etc.), personality (of Galileo and his opponents), scientific evidence etc.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI didn't say Galileo coerced the Church into trying him for heresy. 🙂
Isn't saying that Galileo coerced the Church into trying him for heresy an attempt to justify its course of action? If not, what is it?
I said that Galileo attempted to coerce the Church into supporting his heliocentric views; the attempt backfired and he ended up on trial for heresy. Now maybe "coerce" is too strong a word, but I certainly think he intended it; probably not as an end in itself but, given Galileo's pride and ambitions, perhaps as a means to his achieving high office under Church patronage.
Is this position an attempt to justify the Church's actions? No. Rather, as my mother would put it, it's a reminder that "it takes two hands to clap".
Originally posted by lucifershammerLMAO! The highlight of the thread! Galileo's true motive revealed - to gain employ in the Church!
but I certainly think he intended it; probably not as an end in itself but, given Galileo's pride and ambitions, perhaps as a means to his achieving high office under Church patronage.
LOL! It's just too much. You really live in a fantasy world.
Achieving high office. LOL.
This forum rules.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhy didn't you throw in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition while you were at it? You could've claimed a royal flush.
Maybe to celebrate the 100th anniversary of his pardon, they could posthumously make him an honorary Pope. Or maybe an honorary handmaid for some future child molesting priest.