Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Could make for an interesting Catholic-revisionist science fiction novel, though.

It would be Ptolemaic, not Catholic.

EDIT: And I think it's been tried. Have you read Newton's Cannon*?

* http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345433785/002-7724011-1002437?v=glance&n=283155

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]One last point: you've made a lot of assertions, mostly untrue about the Brahe system being "better" than the heliocentric model. Clearly the Brahe system failed Occam's Razor since it required everything to go around the Sun but the Earth and the Sun then to go around the Earth.

Occam's razor does not apply in the Tychonian vs. Galilean sys ich means, of course, that NASA navigation models assume the Sun orbits the Earth...[/b]

You ignore that anybody trying to prove that the universe was incredibly vast risked being burned at the stake ala Bruno.

Occam's razor does apply; the heliocentric model is the simplest that fits all facts, not merely "more elegant". That is why the model of Brahe was never very popular since the Copernician system predated it by a half-century.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I never said otherwise.

Your new Pope disagrees.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Next paragraph:

The Galileo case has, in the words of John Paul II, become "a sort of myth." It was the symbol of the Church’s supposed opposition to scientific progress and the free search for truth. This myth has played a significant cultural role. While many scientists understand that the God of science is also the God of faith, many others ...[text shortened]... to be fundamentally opposed. Yet these sad misunderstandings belong only to the past.

Clearly, you have perverted the meaning of what is said here. The "myth" that is being discussed here is that the the "Church’s supposed opposition to scientific progress and the free search for truth." By and large, that IS a myth. However, like all institutions staffed by fallible human beings, the RCC has, at times, failed to keep to its standards. As I've mentioned before, I can think of no other scientific theory besides heliocentricism that was ever declared heresy. The actions of the Inquistion in the 1600's regarding heliocentricism were a radical departure from historical Church practice. Both the actual declaration that heliocentricism was heresy and that Galileo's defensive scriptural interpretation methods were objectionable (they are now accepted and have been officially for over a 100 years) have been admitted to be incorrect. What purpose does it serve for you to stubbornly defend the actions of these men in the 1600's and viciously attack Galileo?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You ignore that anybody trying to prove that the universe was incredibly vast risked being burned at the stake ala Bruno.

Occam's razor does apply; the heliocentric model is the simplest that fits all facts, not merely "more elegant". That is why the model of Brahe was never very popular since the Copernician system predated it by a half-century.

I doubt his conception of the vast universe was a significant factor in the killing of Bruno. He had far more serious heresies to worry about - Docetism, pantheism/panentheism, denial of Virgin Birth etc.

Occam's razor is not just about "simplicity". Specifically, it applies to the number of entities in two models that are equally predictive. Even if Tycho's and Galileo's models were equally predictive, Occam's razor would not break the tie because both models had the same number of entities. As it turns out, the two models were not equally predictive - Galileo's model predicted stellar parallax (which was not yet observed); Tycho's didn't (which matched observations perfectly).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not when that "fact" seems to be in dispute. Don't you actually read what I write?

EDIT: It's 'All Souls' Day', BTW.

Yes, I did. Lorini would obviously have criticized heliocentricism and Galileo in private. He also preached in public against them on a specific day given in my source. That was about a month before the Castelli letter.

There is no dispute on the facts that I can see unless you have a source that refutes the factual assertion that Lorini preached against heliocentricism and Galileo on All Souls Day 1613.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your new Pope disagrees.

Even if he did, it just means the Pope and I disagree.

I don't think he does actually disagree, though. I don't know the context (or even veracity) of the quote in the site you provided.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I doubt his conception of the vast universe was a significant factor in the killing of Bruno. He had far more serious heresies to worry about - Docetism, pantheism/panentheism, denial of Virgin Birth etc.

Occam's razor is not just about "simplicity". Specifically, it applies to the number of entities in two models that are equally predictive. Even ...[text shortened]... ax (which was not yet observed); Tycho's didn't (which matched observations perfectly).

Well why don't you give a source that gives us the specific allegations used in Bruno's trial?

I won't keep bothering with Brahe; your comments are absurd. Brahe's theory was created after the Copernician system as a way to keep the Earth at the center of the "world"; of course, it explained things already discussed in Copernician theory! But as stated, the Brahe system was an intellectual dead end that attracted few adherents. Absent the theological argument, it had nothing to recommend it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Clearly, you have perverted the meaning of what is said here. The "myth" that is being discussed here is that the the "Church’s supposed opposition to scientific progress and the free search for truth." By and large, that IS a myth. However, like all institutions staffed by fallible human beings, the RCC has, at times, failed to keep to its standards. As ...[text shortened]... o stubbornly defend the actions of these men in the 1600's and viciously attack Galileo?

How am I perverting the meaning by the words "Next paragraph"? The rest of the entire post is a copy of the last paragraph in BdN's link.

I'm not stubbornly defending the actions of these men. I'm just pointing out that Galileo was no saint in the affair, no innocent victim.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Even if he did, it just means the Pope and I disagree.

I don't think he does actually disagree, though. I don't know the context (or even veracity) of the quote in the site you provided.

Maybe they're liars; it could be, they repeat most of the same tripe you do concerning the Galileo case.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How am I perverting the meaning by the words "Next paragraph"? The rest of the entire post is a copy of the last paragraph in BdN's link.

I'm not stubbornly defending the actions of these men. I'm just pointing out that Galileo was no saint in the affair, no innocent victim.

Don't be asinine; I'm not simply referring to that post!!

I don't care about Galileo's supposed personal failings. The single issue I meant to discuss is why heliocentricism was declared a heresy. Is your answer because the RCC was mad at Galileo's personality?

What qualifications does a victim have to meet to earn the title of "innocent" in LHspeak?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well why don't you give a source that gives us the specific allegations used in Bruno's trial?

I won't keep bothering with Brahe; your comments are absurd. Brahe's theory was created after the Copernician system as a way to keep the Earth at the center of the "world"; of course, it explained things already discussed in Copernician theory! But as ...[text shortened]... attracted few adherents. Absent the theological argument, it had nothing to recommend it.

Wikipedia lists docetism (the official charge against him):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Trial_and_death

It also points out how his astronomical views may have had little to do with his trial.

Footnote to Brahe: Actually, there is an excellent reason why one would use Brahe's model rather than Galileo's - because the origin of his coordinate system would be the same as that of the astronomer; i.e. Earth. So, instead of recording observations wrt Earth and then translating it into a heliocentric coordinate system, a user of Brahe's model would simply record his observations as such.

Why do you think NASA uses a geocentric coordinate system?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, I did. Lorini would obviously have criticized heliocentricism and Galileo in private. He also preached in public against them on a specific day given in my source. That was about a month before the Castelli letter.

There is no dispute on the facts that I can see unless you have a source that refutes the factual assertion that Lorini preached against heliocentricism and Galileo on All Souls Day 1613.

Paul Newall's site (which I cited earlier) has the following to say:

One member of the League, Niccolò Lorini, attacked Galileo in private in 1612 for his ideas that—according to Lorini—verged on the heretical but later wrote to him in apology.

http://www.galilean-library.org/galileo2.html

The Galileo timeline (the link you provided earlier) also points out that Lorini attacked him in private, but makes no mention of an All Soul's Day speech.

The straightforward way to reconcile all these sources is to assume that Lorini attacked him in private, wrote him an apology, then attacked him in public, and wrote him another apology. But that seems rather out of character for a man who would later report Galileo to the Inquisition.

The other possibility is that the All Soul's Day homily was at a private Mass. Note: your site does not actually say it was a "PUBLIC" attack.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Wikipedia lists docetism (the official charge against him):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno#Trial_and_death

It also points out how his astronomical views may have had little to do with his trial.

Footnote to Brahe: Actually, there is an excellent reason why one would use Brahe's model rather than Galileo's - because the origin of hi ...[text shortened]... ecord his observations as such.

Why do you think NASA uses a geocentric coordinate system?

I didn't mean wikipedia. I meant some sort of link to official documents.

Will you give up on Brahe???? You're just being a clown to keep insisting that 1600's scientists should have accepted a theory who's sole purpose was to save the "Earth is the center of the world" thesis of people who misread the Bible. I don't care about his stupid system and neither did hardly any scientists when it was made. It really has nothing to do with the discussion anyway; the RCC didn't endorse Brahe's theories, they simply condemned heliocentricism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't care about Galileo's supposed personal failings. The single issue I meant to discuss is why heliocentricism was declared a heresy. Is your answer because the RCC was mad at Galileo's personality?

One of the reasons would be Galileo's personality, yes.

As I pointed out earlier - historical events do not have just a single or proximate cause. The Galileo affair is a complex one.