Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

Why is it BS? Somebody had to be the first priest. Why not Lorini?

And why 1612? Because it was in the Fall of 1612 that Galileo's letters on sunspots were published by the Lincean Academy (C.f. Timeline on Rice).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]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

[b/]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 t rocket science to figure out that, sooner or later, someone was going to call his bluff.[/b]

You continue to adopt a standard of "proof" that dj2becker would be proud of. Any scientific theory, including Newton's and Einstein's, could have been declared heresy using this standard.

More personal attacks on Galileo. Sickening.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why is it BS? Somebody had to be the first priest. Why not Lorini?

And why 1612? Because it was in the Fall of 1612 that Galileo's letters on sunspots were published by the Lincean Academy (C.f. Timeline on Rice).

You're ridiculous and I think you know it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

Hooke (himself a heliocentrist) was talking about more than "vestiges". Besides, 1674 is the age of the Royal Society, Newton, Hooke, Wren and Halley - hardly the time (in England) for Biblical literalists.

Why is it so hard to believe that Kepler was just exaggerating in 1597? Two massive egos, congratulating each other's brilliance - is it so hard to believe they thought they had more support in the scientific community than they did?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You continue to adopt a standard of "proof" that dj2becker would be proud of. Any scientific theory, including Newton's and Einstein's, could have been declared heresy using this standard.

More personal attacks on Galileo. Sickening.

Not sure what standard of proof you're talking about.

As to attacks on Galileo - do you deny that he was insulting his critics in his letters? Do you deny he claimed to have definitive proof of his heliocentrism in his letters?

Then what's the problem in his critics asking to see his proof? He's a scientist, isn't he?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're ridiculous and I think you know it.

Do you admit that your UMKC website got its year (I'll grant the All Soul's Day date) wrong? Or are you going to get independent corroboration that it was a "PUBLIC" attack?

Because, at the moment, there is no evidence it was a public attack.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do you admit that your UMKC website got its year (I'll grant the All Soul's Day date) wrong? Or are you going to get independent corroboration that it was a "PUBLIC" attack?

Because, at the moment, there is no evidence it was a public attack.

You're an idiot. Dominican Ludovico Delle Colombe published Against the Earth's Motion, an attack on Galileo's theories in late 1610 or 1611. So your claim that the Lorini attack was the first by a priest on Galileo and his theories is clearly WRONG.

No, I admit no such thing. The most logical conclusion has been already stated; that Lorini made private attacks in 1612 and a public one in the All Soul's Day mass in November 1613. That interpretation of the various sources makes that all consistent and none "wrong".

BTW, regarding Brahe "Galileo made the first European observations of sunspots, although there is evidence that Chinese astronomers had done so before him. The very existence of sunspots showed another difficulty with the perfection of the heavens as assumed in the older philosophy. And the annual variations in their motions, first noticed by Francesco Sizzi, presented great difficulties for either the geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe."

from Wikipedia and a bunch of other sites.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not sure what standard of proof you're talking about.

As to attacks on Galileo - do you deny that he was insulting his critics in his letters? Do you deny he claimed to have definitive proof of his heliocentrism in his letters?

Then what's the problem in his critics asking to see his proof? He's a scientist, isn't he?

Thanks for the link on the Ratzinger quote; you obviously didn't read the whole article. The author answers your point:

but the basic point is that the interpretive principle arrived at by Bellarmine in his Letter to Foscarini rendered any thought of development in the Church’s attitude towards heliocentrism or geokineticism impossible due to his insistence that the Bible passages ostensibly contradicting either were to be considered a matter of faith ex parte dicentis. Feyerabend appears to have been unaware of this, given that he remarked that Ratzinger’s position was “similar” to Bellarmine’s when instead only the instrumentalism of the early parts of Bellarmine’s letter are supported by his caution, not the later declaration that all Scriptural passages are authored by the Holy Spirit (with its consequences). Both Feyerabend and Ratzinger were mistaken on this issue, then, since calling this approach - leading invariably to stagnation in astronomy and physics, as Galileo and senior Jesuits like Grienberger foresaw - more rational than Galileo’s is absurd. Like most others who have come into contact with the Galileo Affair, they have simplified the events to fit their own preconceptions.


QED.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Hooke (himself a heliocentrist) was talking about more than "vestiges". Besides, 1674 is the age of the Royal Society, Newton, Hooke, Wren and Halley - hardly the time (in England) for Biblical literalists.

Why is it so hard to believe that Kepler was just exaggerating in 1597? Two massive egos, congratulating each other's brilliance - is it so hard to believe they thought they had more support in the scientific community than they did?

More personal attacks but with Kepler thrown in, too! Kepler's letter is the only contemporaneous account I can find on the web which suggests the level of support for heliocentricism v. geocentricism in the period discussed. Until you present SOME contemporaneous proof to the contrary, I'd say Kepler was in a better position to judge the support each theory had among "mathematicians" in 1597 than you are in 2006.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, regarding Brahe "Galileo made the first European observations of sunspots, although there is evidence that Chinese astronomers had done so before him. The very existence of sunspots showed another difficulty with the perfection of the heavens as assumed in the older philosophy. And the annual variations in their motions, first noticed by Francesco Sizzi, presented great difficulties for either the geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe."

Sorry, I am going off on a tangent here, but the word "sunspots" caught my attention...

Actually the earliest known observation of sunspots was around the year 350 BC by Theophrastus of Athens. The reports from China and other East-Asian countries started later, near 165 BC. Most likely none of those reports were known in Europe during Galileo's lifetime, though. Johannes Fabricius discovered the sunspots and identified them as originating on the Sun at about the same time as Galileo (end of 1610 or early 1611). Christoph Scheiner, a Jesuit priest, also started observing sunspots at about the same time, although he first didn't attribute them to the Sun itself, as this would have been against the Aristotelean theory that the Sun was perfect and unblemished.

BTW, here's the next sentence after the Hooke quote given by you on page 10:

The more knowing and judicious have for many plausible reasons adhered to the Copernican Hypothesis: But the generality of others, either out of ignorance or prejudice, have rejected it as a most extravagant opinion.

Solid support for your argument there, sport. Did you deliberately leave this part out or get the first quote from a second hand source?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're an idiot. Dominican Ludovico Delle Colombe published Against the Earth's Motion, an attack on Galileo's theories in late 1610 or 1611. So your claim that the Lorini attack was the first by a priest on Galileo and his theories is clearly WRONG.

No, I admit no such thing. The most logical conclusion has been already stated; that Lorini mad ...[text shortened]... geocentric system or that of Tycho Brahe."

from Wikipedia and a bunch of other sites.

Show me one source that says it was a "PUBLIC" attack.

Colombe's objections were, IIRC, philosophical and scientific. He was not speaking in his capacity as a priest; i.e. a teacher of the faith.

Originally posted by no1marauder
More personal attacks but with Kepler thrown in, too! Kepler's letter is the only contemporaneous account I can find on the web which suggests the level of support for heliocentricism v. geocentricism in the period discussed. Until you present SOME contemporaneous proof to the contrary, I'd say Kepler was in a better position to judge the support each theory had among "mathematicians" in 1597 than you are in 2006.

If Kepler was correct, then there was widespread support for heliocentrism in the scientific community for unscientific reasons (Kepler's own motivation was mystical).

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, here's the next sentence after the Hooke quote given by you on page 10:

The more knowing and judicious have for many plausible reasons adhered to the Copernican Hypothesis: But the generality of others, either out of ignorance or prejudice, have rejected it as a most extravagant opinion.

Solid support for your argument there, sport. Did you deliberately leave this part out or get the first quote from a second hand source?

I deliberately left it out as it was irrelevant to my argument. My point is about the level of opposition within scientific circles to heliocentrism (as philosophical truth). Whether Hooke thinks his opponents are idiots is irrelevant - the fact is he went out of his way to try and prove heliocentrism (by discovering stellar parallax) to them. Why would he do that if the issue were already settled by 1674?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I deliberately left it out as it was irrelevant to my argument.

Steady on, LH. You're starting to wave your hands around like Coletti.