Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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 provid ...[text shortened]... s at a private Mass. Note: your site does not actually say it was a "PUBLIC" attack.

Has I've already pointed out, there is no contradiction between the sources. You've now come up with another totally unwarranted assumption - the brand spanking new "private Mass" theory. Does one preach at one of those? I suppose so. I've also pointed out that it is probably mentioned because it was Lorini's first PUBLIC denunciation; people usually say things in private BEFORE they say them in public. At any rate, I await your evidence that the mass on All Soul's Day that Lorini PREACHED at was a PRIVATE one, Oh Great Grasper of Straws.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

Heliocentricism was declared a heresy because of Galileo's personality? If that's true to any degree, then it shows the irrationality of the men who did it, doesn't it?

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).

Then Galileo was in trouble.

To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.
--Cardinal Bellermine 1615, during the trial of Galileo

Saint Bellermine also presided at Bruno's trial.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Has I've already pointed out, there is no contradiction between the sources. You've now come up with another totally unwarranted assumption - the brand spanking new "private Mass" theory. Does one preach at one of those? I suppose so. I've also pointed out that it is probably mentioned because it was Lorini's first PUBLIC denunciation; people usually say ...[text shortened]... on All Soul's Day that Lorini PREACHED at was a PRIVATE one, Oh Great Grasper of Straws.

Occam's Razor, my friend (And yes, this is the correct way to use it).

Your source does not say it was a "PUBLIC" homily. Your source says that he had to apologise for the All Soul's Day attack. The other two sources say that Lorini attacked him in private. They say nothing about a "PUBLIC" attack. Paul Newall's essay says both that Lorini attacked him in private and he had to apologise for it.

The hypothesis that he attacked him twice - in public and in private - and then apologised twice (!) clearly has more assumptions than the hypothesis that the All Soul's Day attack mentioned on the UMKC site is the same "private" attack mentioned in the other two sites. So, Occam's razor clearly favours the 'private Mass theory' (we can be sure there was at least one Mass - your site says "Preaching on All Soul's Day" - a term usually reserved for the homily).

Anyhow, what's your evidence that the All Soul's Day Mass was "PUBLIC"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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 syste ...[text shortened]... anyway; the RCC didn't endorse Brahe's theories, they simply condemned heliocentricism.

What's with you and official documents?

I can't find any link to Bruno's trial documents online. I can find this account in Trapp & Yates (the seminal work in English-language Bruno studies), though (Trapp and Yates. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London - 2002. p.389):

Since Bruno in his final refusal to recant anything included all that he had ever said or written, the final sentence may have included the many and various points in all the interrogations over the years of imprisonment, as well as the eight points, whatever these were exactly. Gaspar Scioppius who witnessed the death of Bruno and may have heard the sentence read out at the time, gives a very mixed list of points for which he was condemned; that there are innumerable worlds; that magic is a good and licit thing; that the Holy Spirit is the anima mundi; that Moses did his miracles by magic in which he was more proficient than the Egyptians; that Christ was a Magus. 60 There are others, equally incoherent. The fact is that we do not have enough evidence (the processo being lost) from which to reconstruct Bruno's trial and condemnation.

I know you're not much for historians' "opinions", but here's theirs anyway (p.390):

Thus, the legend that Bruno was prosecuted as a philosophical thinker, was burned for his daring views on innumerable worlds or on the movement of the earth, can no longer stand. That legend has already been undermined by the publication of the Sommario, which shows how little attention was paid to philosophical or scientific questions in the interrogations, and by the writings of Corsano and Firpo, laying stress on Bruno's religious mission. The present study has, I hope, brought out even more clearly the fact of the mission and its nature, and has also emphasised that the philosophy, including the supposedly Copernican heliocentricity, belonged to the mission. Completely involved as he was in Hermetism, Bruno could not conceive of a philosophy of nature, of number, of geometry, of a diagram, without infusing into these divine meanings. He is thus really the last person in the world to take as representative of a philosophy divorced from divinity.

The reason people didn't bother much with Brahe's system (and they bothered even less with Galileo's) was because Kepler's elliptical orbits simply blew both models out of the water. The 17th century astronomer distinguished between a mathematical model ('hypothesis'😉 and a representation of reality - so he was perfectly free to use Kepler's model (even though Kepler himself was a heliocentrist) while remaining a geocentrist himself. That's also at the root of Boyle's comment I cited earlier.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Occam's Razor, my friend (And yes, this is the correct way to use it).

Your source does not say it was a "PUBLIC" homily. Your source says that he had to apologise for the All Soul's Day attack. The other two sources say that Lorini attacked him in private. They say nothing about a "PUBLIC" attack. Paul Newall's essay says both that Lorini a ...[text shortened]... .

Anyhow, what's your evidence that the All Soul's Day Mass was "PUBLIC"?

Except Newell says the PRIVATE attack was in 1612, whereas the All Souls Day Mass was in November, 1613. By your reading, Newell got her date wrong. That's pretty sloppy research for a "professional historian", ain't it?

Most Masses are public, not private and this Mass was on a Holy Day where a public mass would be held. The term "preaching" is usually applied to speaking in public. And the fact that the site mentions it as significant also leads to the conclusion that it was a public denunciation as already explained to you. All the logical inferences favor the conclusion that the Mass was public, therefore it is your burden to show it wasn't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Heliocentricism was declared a heresy because of Galileo's personality? If that's true to any degree, then it shows the irrationality of the men who did it, doesn't it?

I never said they acted with perfect rationality.

That said, another reason why heliocentrism was declared heresy was because Galileo couldn't prove it. You can't seriously deny that the Theological Advisory Committee taking up the heliocentrism question in 1615 had nothing to do with the publicity it was receiving over Galileo's support for it (Copernicus' book came out seventy years earlier - in 1545).

If Galileo could've proven it then, no matter how abrasive his personality, the committee could not have concluded that it was "philosophically false" and, hence, could not have concluded that it was heretical (the Church was committed to the position that philosophical truth cannot contradict theological truth and vice-versa since Aquinas's time).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What's with you and official documents?

I can't find any link to Bruno's trial documents online. I can find this account in Trapp & Yates (the seminal work in English-language Bruno studies), though (Trapp and Yates. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. London - 2002. p.389):
[quote]Since Bruno in his final refusal to recant anything ...[text shortened]... centrist himself. That's also at the root of Boyle's comment I cited earlier.

The last paragraph is bunk; the evidence from Kepler is that geocentricism was intellectually rejected by 1597 by most learned man ("mathematicians" to him would have meant that). There's also a bit of "switching the goalposts" here again; heliocentricism was declared a heresy, NOT Galileo's specific theories. In fact, Galileo was not even mentioned in the kangeroo Commission's "findings" in 1616. There is some truth to the claim that what was really going on was a switch from the type of Aristotlian "science" of merely making workable models to the modern science of describing reality. But, a Church that insisted that science couldn't describe physical reality IF that disagreed with Scripture WAS being an impediment to scientific development, wasn't it?

Bruno's case is probably worth another screeching thread filled with your defenses of the indefensible. I'll have to look for more primary sources; I ask for historical documents concerning trials for the same reason that physicists want to see the equations for Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Except Newell says the PRIVATE attack was in 1612, whereas the All Souls Day Mass was in November, 1613. By your reading, Newell got her date wrong. That's pretty sloppy research for a "professional historian", ain't it?

Most Masses are public, not private and this Mass was on a Holy Day where a public mass would be held. The term "preaching" i ...[text shortened]... r the conclusion that the Mass was public, therefore it is your burden to show it wasn't.

Except Newell says the PRIVATE attack was in 1612, whereas the All Souls Day Mass was in November, 1613. By your reading, Newell got her date wrong. That's pretty sloppy research for a "professional historian", ain't it?

Yes, if it weren't corroborated by the Rice site (which says that it was a "private" attack in its timeline):

Lorini was the first to attack Galileo from the pulpit, toward the end of 1612, but in the face of an uproar among the friends of Galileo quickly wrote a letter of apology.

http://galileo.rice.edu/chr/caccini.html

So, it seems your Law School website got its date wrong.

Most Masses are public, not private and this Mass was on a Holy Day where a public mass would be held. The term "preaching" is usually applied to speaking in public. And the fact that the site mentions it as significant also leads to the conclusion that it was a public denunciation as already explained to you.

What do you mean "most Masses are public"? Catholic priests were obliged to celebrate the Mass every day (I don't know if this is still the case) - in most cases those Masses would, in fact, be private (usually just the priest himself, or a few fellow-priests concelebrating). I knew a priest who celebrated the Mass in public every morning - he'd be lucky to get four parishoners attending.

This is mediaeval Europe we're talking about - private Masses for aristocratic families in their family chapels is not uncommon. Besides, Lorini was a Dominican - which meant that he lived in a priory with other fellow-Dominicans. Either way, he would have had a select audience and, yes, he would be "preaching" to them.

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The last paragraph is bunk; the evidence from Kepler is that geocentricism was intellectually rejected by 1597 by most learned man ("mathematicians" to him would have meant that). There's also a bit of "switching the goalposts" here again; heliocentricism was declared a heresy, NOT Galileo's specific theories. In fact, Galileo was not even mentioned in t ...[text shortened]... n that physicists want to see the equations for Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

It's very simple m nephew. the RCC thought Bruno's wriiting should conform with their "book", it didm't so they jailed him for 8 years and ginally murdered him. Long Live Bruno!!!. AND : Garibaldi was right on about how the RCC should be treated.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I never said they acted with perfect rationality.

That said, another reason why heliocentrism was declared heresy was because Galileo couldn't prove it. You can't seriously deny that the Theological Advisory Committee taking up the heliocentrism question in 1615 had nothing to do with the publicity it was receiving over Galileo's support for sophical truth cannot contradict theological truth and vice-versa since Aquinas's time).

Well, your Pope did.

Galileo started making observations of the heavens with his telescope (I know he didn't invent the telescope but he was the first to use it for that purpose) in 1609. His book on sunspots wasn't published until 1613. 3 years later, heliocentricism was declared heresy. I assume you would concede all these factual matters.

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 them banned in 3 years. Please.

Stop pretending the Commission in 1616 was some kind of fact finding body; it was formed to write up a preordained conclusion. Church conservatives wanted this heliocentricism nonsense shut down once and for all because it disagreed with Scripture. No "proof" would have satisfied them; one only look at the threads in this forum concerning evolution to see the extraordinary standards of evidence religious fanatics want to apply to scientific theories that disagree with their reading of Scripture. The pressure to come up with such irrefutable "proofs" led Galileo to some serious errors of science as you have pointed out (the "tides" argument in particular).

It's quite true that absent Galileo's observations and books regarding heliocentricism the Church probably wouldn't have banned it in 1616. That would have waited until some other scientist made the same conclusions if people like Bellermine were still in control of the Church. The RCC of the time was probably willing to allow some academicans to hold ideas that seemed to contradict Scripture as long as they kept it to themselves, but they were unwilling to allow them to teach and write about a physical reality that didn't meet the prerequistes of their religious dogma. That was too dangerous in their view; once people start thinking for themselves you never know where THAT is going to lead.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Except Newell says the PRIVATE attack was in 1612, whereas the All Souls Day Mass was in November, 1613. By your reading, Newell got her date wrong. That's pretty sloppy research for a "professional historian", ain't it?

Yes, if it weren't corroborated by the Rice site (which says that it was a "private" attack in its timeline):
[quote]Lori ...[text shortened]... ublic. It's significant because Lorini was the first priest to attack Galileo.[/b]

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The last paragraph is bunk; the evidence from Kepler is that geocentricism was intellectually rejected by 1597 by most learned man ("mathematicians" to him would have meant that). There's also a bit of "switching the goalposts" here again; heliocentricism was declared a heresy, NOT Galileo's specific theories. In fact, Galileo was not even mentioned in t ...[text shortened]... agreed with Scripture WAS being an impediment to scientific development, wasn't it?

If geocentrism was intellectually rejected by "mathematicians" in 1597, then why were they still debating it in 1674 (as Hooke says - and he was a heliocentrist himself)? That too in England - the last place a scientist would need to fear the Church?

Isn't it more likely that Kepler simply disregarded anyone who disagreed with his heliocentrism in his statement to Galileo?

That Galileo was not mentioned in the Commission's findings in 1616 does not mean he was not indirectly responsible for its convening then. You need to look beyond just what's written down in official documents.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If geocentrism was intellectually rejected by "mathematicians" in 1597, then why were they still debating it in 1674 (as Hooke says - and he was a heliocentrist himself)? That too in England - the last place a scientist would need to fear the Church?

Isn't it more likely that Kepler simply disregarded anyone who disagreed with his heliocentrism in ...[text shortened]... its convening then. You need to look beyond just what's written down in official documents.

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.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Well, your Pope did.

Galileo started making observations of the heavens with his telescope (I know he didn't invent the telescope but he was the first to use it for that purpose) in 1609. His book on sunspots wasn't published until 1613. 3 years later, heliocentricism was declared heresy. I assume you would concede all these factual matters.

nce people start thinking for themselves you never know where THAT is going to lead.

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

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 them banned in 3 years. Please.

If he didn't have the proof, then what was he on about for three years? What made him so confident he could hurl insults at his critics?

I'm not saying they weren't idiots to demand proof from him in such a short time. I'm saying he was an idiot for claiming he had proof, when he had none. It's not rocket science to figure out that, sooner or later, someone was going to call his bluff.