Originally posted by no1marauderAlright, I'll grant you're right and the Tychonian system died towards 1650.
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
Why was Hooke trying to discover stellar parallax in 1674 if it didn't matter any more? Why does he mention geocentrists in his book, a whole generation after their models supposedly died out?
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis was not an unusual writing technique at the time. The first part of Locke's Two Treatises on Government was directed towards the work of a Filmer, who was pretty much discredited by the time of Locke's work. Maybe it's kicking a dog when it's down.
Alright, I'll grant you're right and the Tychonian system died towards 1650.
Why was Hooke trying to discover stellar parallax in 1674 if it didn't matter any more? Why does he mention geocentrists in his book, a whole generation after their models supposedly died out?
As to stellar parallax, the Copernicians still believed that they could observe them and it was still a perceived "hole" that they hadn't been observed. They had an explanation but somebody like Hooke who was first and foremost an experimental scientist would still have wanted to solve the technical problem.
1 edit
From page 19:
My "entire case" hardly rests on whether the Lorini attack was public OR private. Your really grasping at straws to state such nonsense. Galileo need only have known that there were some in the Church stating that Copernician theory was heresy and lobbying for it to be declared such. He was certainly intelligent enough (although you seem intent on claiming he was an idiot) to realize what effect that would have on his writing and teaching. The sites state Lorini was the first and that his attack preceded Galileo's letter to Castelli by a month. It doesn't take much extrapolation to conclude they were related; as you concede, Galileo had pretty good sources of info in the Church.
If it wasn't public, it wasn't public. If the 1613 date is wrong, it's wrong. It's still quite obvious that there were people in the Church campaigning to have heliocentricism declared a heresy and Galileo knew about it.
EDIT: It's quite possible it is given such prominence in the sources because Lorini is the one who forwarded the complaint to the Inquistion.
Originally posted by no1marauderFrom No1:
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.
"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."
Even if you work pro bono, your clients deserve a full refund on their money.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOne last point about this Lorini attack: I read in the Linder piece that Lorini preached it at a Mass on All Souls Day, 1613. I made the following assumptions which seemed (and still seem reasonable):
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 mazon.com/gp/product/0226734811/002-7724011-1002437?v=glance&n=283155
1) That Linder wouldn't make a factual error concerning the date and circumstances of the attack:
2) That preaching meant speaking to a group about a religious subject;
3) That a Mass held on All Souls Day (a Holy Day as I am aware) would have been open to the public.
It is plausible that one or more of these assumptions was incorrect, but the evidence to the contrary is so far unconvincing to me. I'll try to locate the Santanelli book where a direct cite is given to a page concerning the Lorini attack. If the evidence is such that it is shown to me that the Lorini attack was not at a public Mass than I'll issue a correction.
As I have pointed out several times though, whether the attack was made at a public Mass or not is largely irrelevant to the issue at hand i.e. whether Galileo's use of theological arguments in the letter to Castelli was defensive (as I claim) or offensive (as LH claims - offensive in the sense of being part of his trying to "coerce and force" the Church to adopt heliocentric theory).
Originally posted by princeoforangeWhereas you sit there safe in your 'knowledge'. With no desire to actually learn anything or think for yourself. Your posts are so full of technical errors, non sequiters, and lies it's amazing you can even convince yourself it's all true!
Scepticism doesn't make any sense. Their golden maxim is "Certainty of knowledge is impossible to acquire" In which case how do they know they are right?
Originally posted by scottishinnzGet with the ad hominems already!!! 😛 Is this how you welcome all new members to the forums, scott?
Whereas you sit there safe in your 'knowledge'. With no desire to actually learn anything or think for yourself. Your posts are so full of technical errors, non sequiters, and lies it's amazing you can even convince yourself it's all true!
Originally posted by amannionYour stance is logically self-defeating. Are you claiming that there is no knowing that you are right... except in the case where you are claiming that there is no knowing you are right? It's as absurd as claiming that there is no absolute truth... except for the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. You skeptics are quite an interesting bunch.
We don't, but we also know you aren't either ...
Originally posted by HalitoseNo, I don't welcome all members to the forums like that; only when they come in spouting rubbish. You can claim it's an ad hom if you wish Hal, although were you to actually READ his posts, full of unsubstantiated claims you'd actually see that I'm right.
Get with the ad hominems already!!! 😛 Is this how you welcome all new members to the forums, scott?
Originally posted by HalitoseNot at all.
Your stance is logically self-defeating. Are you claiming that there is no knowing that you are right... except in the case where you are claiming that there is no knowing you are right? It's as absurd as claiming that there is no absolute truth... except for the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth. You skeptics are quite an interesting bunch.
Perhaps I should be a little more detailed.
I'm confident in my view that religious worldviews are inconsistent with a scientific worldview. My skepticism comes from my scientific worldview. A religious worldview seems, to me, to allow for no alternate conceptions or opinions. I know theologians are constantly debating about stuff, but not about the basic stuff upon which any religion is grounded - that's pretty much fixed in stone.
A scientific worldview is not. There are a number of accepted basic principles, and many theories and models that are accepted as valid, but never are they (or should they be, sometimes scientists can get as overzealous as the rest of us) completely fixed.
My response to Prince Of Orange was facetious, but it contained the basic gist of my view.
Originally posted by amannionDisagree, at least on the current skeptic view. Although skepticism in its purest form delays conclusion until all information is available, current use of the term denotes a denial of any supernatural occurence and/or being.
Not at all.
Perhaps I should be a little more detailed.
I'm confident in my view that religious worldviews are inconsistent with a scientific worldview. My skepticism comes from my scientific worldview. A religious worldview seems, to me, to allow for no alternate conceptions or opinions. I know theologians are constantly debating about stuff, but not a ...[text shortened]...
My response to Prince Of Orange was facetious, but it contained the basic gist of my view.
The current skeptical view is hardly scientific, and those immersed in any field of scientific thought should be offended at assertions otherwise.
Students of truth, however, are not subject to the see-saw of public opinion, nor are they dogmatic on the speculative. They are content to know what can be known, assuming as true only that which has not been shown to be false, absurd, or irrelevant.