Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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?

LMFAO! And Galileo was "intellectually dishonest"????????????? You left it out because it DEMOLISHED your argument!

EDIT: Nice try though; because you never gave an internet link I didn't bother to look for the actual quote until today. I'm used to people playing fair in argument; I'll know better next time with you.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMFAO! And Galileo was "intellectually dishonest"????????????? You left it out because it DEMOLISHED your argument!

It does?

Keep reading:

To those indeed who understand not the grounds and principles of Astronomy, the prejudice of common converse doth make it seem so absurd, that a man shall as soon perswade them that the Sun doth not shine, as that it doth not move; and as easily move the Earth as make them believe that it do's so already. For such Persons I cannot suppose that they should understand the cogency of the Reasons here present ed, drawn from the following observations of Parallax, much less therefore can I expect their belief and assent thereunto; to them I have only this to say, 'Tis not here my business to instruct them in the first principles of Astronomy, there being already Introductions enough for that purpose: But rather to furnish the Learned with an experimentum crucis to determine between the Tychonick and Copernican Hypotheses.

That which hath hitherto continued the dispute hath been the plausibleness of some Arguments alledged by the one and the other party, with such who have been by nature or education prejudiced to this or that way.

http://www.roberthooke.com/motion_of_the_earth_001.htm

On the other side, some out of a contradicting nature to their Tutors; others, by as great a prejudice of institution; and some few others upon better reasoned grounds, from the proportion and harmony of the World, cannot but imbrace the Copernican Arguments, as demonstrations that the Earth moves, and that the Sun and Stars stand still. I confess there is somewhat of reason on both sides, but there is also something of prejudice even on that side that seems the most rational.

For by way of objection, what way of demonstration have we that the frame and constitution of the World is so harmonious according to our notion of its harmony, as we suppose? Is there not a possibility that the things may be otherwise? nay, is there not something of probability? may not the Sun move as Ticho supposes, and the Planets make their Revolutions about it whilst the Earth stands still, and by its magnetism attracts the Sun, and so keeps him moving about it, whilst at the same time and move about the Sun, after the same manner as and move about the Sun whilst the Satellites move about them? especially since it is not demonstrated without much art and difficulty, and taking many things for granted which are hard to be proved, that there is any body in the Universe more considerable then the Earth we tread on.

Is there not much reason for the Hypothesis o f Ticho at least, when he with all the accurateness that he arrived to with his vast Instruments, or Riccioli, who pretends much to out-strip him, were not able to find any sensible Parallax of the Earths Orb among the fixt Stars, especially if the observations upon which they ground their assertions, were made to the accurateness of some few Seconds? What then, though we have a Chimera or Idea of perfection and harmony in that Hypothesis we pitch upon, may there not be a much greater harmony and proportion in the constitution it self which we know not, though it be quite differing from what we fancy?

http://www.roberthooke.com/motion_of_the_earth_002.htm

EDIT: It's clear the people he was talking about in the sentence you cited were neither astronomers nor philosophers. However, in subsequent passages, he clearly reflects division amongst astronomers and philosophers as to the Tychonian/Copernican problem.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Steady on, LH. You're starting to wave your hands around like Coletti.

Still think I'm waving my hands?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It does?

Keep reading:
[quote]To those indeed who understand not the grounds and principles of Astronomy, the prejudice of common converse doth make it seem so absurd, that a man shall as soon perswade them that the Sun doth not shine, as that it doth not move; and as easily move the Earth as make them believe that it do's so already. For such Per ...[text shortened]... eflects division amongst astronomers and philosophers as to the Tychonian/Copernican problem.

Here's a straw; keep grasping.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It does?

Keep reading:
[quote]To those indeed who understand not the grounds and principles of Astronomy, the prejudice of common converse doth make it seem so absurd, that a man shall as soon perswade them that the Sun doth not shine, as that it doth not move; and as easily move the Earth as make them believe that it do's so already. For such Per eflects division amongst astronomers and philosophers as to the Tychonian/Copernican problem.

Shall I continue?

The Controversie therefore notwithstanding all that hath been said either by the one or by the other Party, remains yet undetermined, Whether the Earth move about the Sun, or the Sun about the Earth; and all the Arguments alledged either on this or that side, are but probabilities at best, and admit not of a necessary and positive conclusion.

http://www.roberthooke.com/motion_of_the_earth_003.htm

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's a straw; keep grasping.

Are you denying that Hooke admitted to serious opposition within scientific circles? Are you denying that the sentence I left out had nothing to do with opposition within the scientific community?

EDIT: There's no surprise the common man in Hooke's day would have thought the Sun orbited the Earth. There's no surprise Hooke would ignore him for knowing nowt about astronomy either. But, as I said earlier, that is irrelevant to our discussion.

Also, you've yet to show any source that says the 1613 Lorini attack (if there was one) was a public attack.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Also, you've yet to show any source that says the 1613 Lorini attack (if there was one) was a public attack.

Desperation it sounds like. I've given my reasons for believing it was a public Mass, you've given speculation without any reason it might not have been. You've made a fool of yourself on many factual issues already, I see no reason to believe you haven't on this one as well. You originally stated that the Lorini attack was included in the timeline because "It's significant because Lorini was the first priest to attack Galileo."; when it was pointed out by me that Colombe, a Dominican, had written a BOOK several years earlier attacking Galileo, you stammered that "He was not speaking in his capacity as a priest" LMFAO!

Since you like experts, Professor F. Wilson who taught (teaches?) the History of Science at Rochester Institute of Technology had this to say about Tychonian theory:

This "Tychonic theory" was proposed in part, to emphasize Tycho's orthodoxy against his enemies at the Danish court - of whom he had many. Reminiscent of the views of Heracleides, it shared the fate of all halfhearted compromises in an age of desperate antagonism. It went almost entirely disregarded.

Science and Values
Chapter 16
http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/bruno.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Shall I continue?

[b]The Controversie therefore notwithstanding all that hath been said either by the one or by the other Party, remains yet undetermined, Whether the Earth move about the Sun, or the Sun about the Earth; and all the Arguments alledged either on this or that side, are but probabilities at best, and admit not of a necessary and positive conclusion.

http://www.roberthooke.com/motion_of_the_earth_003.htm[/b]

Keep reading it; he's being sardonic.

From a Purdue University website regarding the Jesuit astronomer Riccoli:

Although Riccioli’s book had no effect on the debate over the Copernican theory—by the middle of the seventeenth century, almost all scientists and astronomers were Copernicans—it illustrates one of the classic cases of theory choice in the history of science.

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~curd/riccioli.html

One last one from the Rice site:

The tide now ran in favor of the heliocentric theory, and from the middle of the seventeenth century there were few important astronomers who were not Copernicans.

http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/copernican_system.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Desperation it sounds like. I've given my reasons for believing it was a public Mass, you've given speculation without any reason it might not have been. You've made a fool of yourself on many factual issues already, I see no reason to believe you haven't on this one as well. You originally stated that the Lorini attack was included in the timeline becau attacking Galileo, you stammered that "He was not speaking in his capacity as a priest"

When I get my facts wrong, I'm the first one to admit it. In this case, however, you've been going on about how Galileo responded to Lorini's "PUBLIC" criticisms when your source does not actually say it was public. Two other sources explicitly say there was a private criticism in 1612 (and one of them uses the phrase "from the pulpit" - which is similar to the "preaching" your source used; the same source also says it was towards the end of the year - which matches the All Soul's Day dating of your source), but make no mention of the public 1613 attack. If it was so significant, why did they leave it out?

The only other place (other than a reproduction of Prof. Linder's article on the U.Pitt. site) I've found a mention of an attack in 1613 is an article by Michael Fowler (a physics Professor) on the U.Va. site[1]:

In 1613, Father Nicolo Lorini, a professor of ecclesiastical history in Florence, inveighed against the new astronomy, in particular "Ipernicus". (Sant p 25). He wrote a letter of apology after being reproved.

The "Sant" refers to Giorgio de Santillana's The Crime of Galileo[2] - which is also listed in Prof. Linder's bibliography. Now, while I'm unable to locate Santillana's book, I did find this interesting quote in Stillman Drake's Galileo: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford, 2001) p.71:

In 1612 a rumour had reached Galileo that Niccolò Lorini, an elderly Dominican much liked by the Medici, had said that ‘this fellow Ipernicus’ seemed to contradict the Bible. The league at Florence had suggested getting a priest to attack Galileo but was reprimanded by a churchman, perhaps the Archbishop of Florence, at whose home they had met.

Uncanny resemblance to the Fowler quote above? Drake lists de Santillana in his bibliography. In fact, Van Helden (who authored the Rice article I cited earlier) also lists de Santillana in his bibliography.

The most direct evidence, however, comes from Artigas & Shea (p.52):

When Galileo was told that on 2 November 1612, All Souls' Day, a Dominican named Niccolò Lorini had attacked his views at a meeting in Florence, he asked for an explanation.

Two All Soul's Day speeches, in successive years? Both about "Ipernicus"? Both leading to an apology? Come on, surely you see by now that the most reasonable explanation is that there is just one speech, which was private, in 1612. Linder and Fowler simply got the year wrong.

EDIT: Maybe I'm wrong about Lorini being the first cleric to attack Galileo. Maybe his was the first attack by a prominent cleric/philosopher (Artigas & Shea do say that Lorini was a regular in aristocratic circles). Or maybe it's of interest to historians because Lorini eventually reported Galileo to the Inquisition. The point being - there are other plausible explanations to the significance of his attack than just that it was public.

---
[1] http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gal_life.htm
[2] http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226734811/002-7724011-1002437?v=glance&n=283155

Originally posted by lucifershammer
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.

According to Newall, Colombe's objections were mainly religious (?) and Galileo ignored them.

So, I was wrong on this.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Keep reading it; he's being sardonic.

He is? Where?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When I get my facts wrong, I'm the first one to admit it. In this case, however, you've been going on about how Galileo responded to Lorini's "PUBLIC" criticisms when your source does not actually say it was public. Two other sources explicitly say there was a private criticism in 1612 (and one of them uses the phrase "from the pulpit" - which is simi ...[text shortened]... mazon.com/gp/product/0226734811/002-7724011-1002437?v=glance&n=283155

Actually, I don't care if it was public or not. Continue nitpicking on this; it really doesn't matter one way or the other. Obviously, you're trying to deflect the fact that you have made serious errors effecting your main premises. I'll get my earlier post on this, but whether Lorini's statement was public or not is besides the point; it is enough that Galileo knew that members of the Church were condemning his works as heresy. This caused him to use theological arguments in his defense. Even the final judgment of the Inquistion conceded as much; but you can't.