Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1:"Wikipedia and you are full of it. "

That's the best you can come up with? The facts don't agree with your position so I (and Wikipedia - a source you have no problems citing when it suits your purposes) are "full of it"?

no1:"Brahe's ideas were NEVER dominant and they would have been dropped to an intellectual curiousity a lot faster if peo ...[text shortened]... ant Scripture passages if Galileo had presented scientific proof of his theory.

On the contrary, all the evidence vistesd and I presented here points to the opposite.

Ummm, I wasn’t aware that I presented any evidence on this question. If there was some in the sites that I referenced, I missed it because I was looking for the religious connections, not the scientific discussion. 😛

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1:"Wikipedia and you are full of it. "

That's the best you can come up with? The facts don't agree with your position so I (and Wikipedia - a source you have no problems citing when it suits your purposes) are "full of it"?

no1:"Brahe's ideas were NEVER dominant and they would have been dropped to an intellectual curiousity a lot faster if peo ant Scripture passages if Galileo had presented scientific proof of his theory.

YOU ARE LYING! Copernicius' books remained banned (I don't care about your nitpick) for two centuries AFTER Galileo, long after his theories were established to the scientific community's satisfaction. Explain that fact.

There are no "facts" that Brahe's model was ever dominant. Brahe's theories postdated Copernicius and were primarily promulgated because of the problem with Scripture. Brahe himself died in 1601 and by the mid 1600's, the Copernician model, bolstered by Kepler and Galileo's work was predominant. By the time of Newton, that was undenialably true. Further, find me ONE reference in any of the Church documents saying "Well we think Brahe's theory explains the facts better than Galileo's - that's why were going to declare G a heretic and maybe burn him at the stake"! Your whole premise is utterly ludicrous.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]On the contrary, all the evidence vistesd and I presented here points to the opposite.

Ummm, I wasn’t aware that I presented any evidence on this question. If there was some in the sites that I referenced, I missed it because I was looking for the religious connections, not the scientific discussion. 😛[/b]

You didn't and neither did he.

Originally posted by vistesd
1. Then that was (is?) the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. On that basis, he would not, I think, have had a problem with the Lutherans—he might have with the Calvinists.

2. I think I understand. Let me just spin it back to you to be sure: (a) You are not arguing that the church was/is justified in suppressing scientifi ...[text shortened]... e issue here in the States—driven principally by Protestants of Calvinist or Anabaptist descent.

1. Not sure what you mean here, but I think you're referring to the "private interpretation" of Scripture. Correct?

2. I don't know why people keep reading into my posts a justification for the actions of the Church in this matter (no1 completely ignores my protests to being characterised thus). What I am pointing out was that Galileo's trial was entirely avoidable - and not just from the part of the Church or by Galileo desisting from doing his scientific research. In fact, I'm arguing that the trial came about, in part, because Galileo did not stick to scientific research and the scientific method.

I'm just pointing out that the facts of history are not the simplistic black vs. white / Church vs. science picture that most people think.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Not sure what you mean here, but I think you're referring to the "private interpretation" of Scripture. Correct?

2. I don't know why people keep reading into my posts a justification for the actions of the Church in this matter (no1 completely ignores my protests to being characterised thus). What I am pointing out was that Galileo's tria e not the simplistic black vs. white / Church vs. science picture that most people think.

1. Not sure what you mean here, but I think you're referring to the "private interpretation" of Scripture. Correct?

Yep.

With regard to 2.: It's late here (Good God, have you been up all night!?!), and I have been having a great time sipping brandy all these hours we've been doing this, but--I think that No.1 and I have been unwilling to uncouple Galileo from Copernicus, and so the question of Galileo's trial, per se, has not been the issue, at least for me. So while you're arguing one point, I tend to see the whole--by which I mean the larger issue of justification for the church's stance (Protestant or RCC). Therefore, there is a tendency to read your arguments re the trial back into the larger issue of justification. If that makes any sense...

Originally posted by vistesd
1. Then that was (is?) the difference between Protestantism and Catholicism. On that basis, he would not, I think, have had a problem with the Lutherans—he might have with the Calvinists.

2. I think I understand. Let me just spin it back to you to be sure: (a) You are not arguing that the church was/is justified in suppressing scientifi ...[text shortened]... e issue here in the States—driven principally by Protestants of Calvinist or Anabaptist descent.

But that's absurd; the telescope wasn't even used for astronomy until 1609. By 1615, our supposedly impartial judges of scientific fact had already declared the Copernician system a heresy! They certainly didn't give G much time, did they? Brahe never used anything but his naked eye but his ideas were not heresy because they were deemed to be compatible with Scripture.

This whole discussion is an LH red herring; the sentence of the Inquistion makes it utterly and completely clear that Galileo was punished for his scientific theories because it was deemed they clashed with religious beliefs.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]On the contrary, all the evidence vistesd and I presented here points to the opposite.

Ummm, I wasn’t aware that I presented any evidence on this question. If there was some in the sites that I referenced, I missed it because I was looking for the religious connections, not the scientific discussion. 😛[/b]

I was referring to the point you cited where Galileo's works became popular in Protestant countries. Clearly, that could not have happened if heliocentricists felt their lives were in danger. And, if they had nothing to fear by adopting the heliocentric theory, then the most reasonable explanation for the popularity of the Tychonian model till the 18th century is that it was a better scientific model given the data available at the time (which it was). This refutes no1's assertion that the reason the Tychonian model was so popular was that scientists feared the Inquisition. For obvious reasons, there was no Inquisition in Protestant countries.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
1. Not sure what you mean here, but I think you're referring to the "private interpretation" of Scripture. Correct?

2. I don't know why people keep reading into my posts a justification for the actions of the Church in this matter (no1 completely ignores my protests to being characterised thus). What I am pointing out was that Galileo's tria ...[text shortened]... e not the simplistic black vs. white / Church vs. science picture that most people think.

You're blaming the victim, like somebody who says a woman who was raped shouldn't have been wearing that short of a skirt. Your "arguments" are contemptible as well as factually untrue.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I was referring to the point you cited where Galileo's works became popular in Protestant countries. Clearly, that could not have happened if heliocentricists felt their lives were in danger. And, if they had nothing to fear by adopting the heliocentric theory, then the most reasonable explanation for the popularity of the Tychonian model till the 18t ...[text shortened]... feared the Inquisition. For obvious reasons, there was no Inquisition in Protestant countries.

I made no such assertion; in fact, if you could read I said his theory was never popular. Certainly it was on the dustbin of scientific thought before 1700.

Originally posted by no1marauder
YOU ARE LYING! Copernicius' books remained banned (I don't care about your nitpick) for two centuries AFTER Galileo, long after his theories were established to the scientific community's satisfaction. Explain that fact.

There are no "facts" that Brahe's model was ever dominant. Brahe's theories postdated Copernicius and were primarily promu ...[text shortened]... heretic and maybe burn him at the stake"! Your whole premise is utterly ludicrous.

no1:"YOU ARE LYING! Copernicius' books remained banned (I don't care about your nitpick) for two centuries AFTER Galileo, long after his theories were established to the scientific community's satisfaction. Explain that fact."

I don't have to. Regardless of whether you think I'm nitpicking or not, the fact is that Copernicus' works were freely available (with minor modifications - and that's what the "ban" was all about). It remained on the Index as long as scientific evidence did not exist to prove it correct; once the scientific evidence (i.e. of stellar parallax) was observed, it was taken off the Index. The "scientific community's satisfaction" with the Copernican model until that point was aesthetic, not scientific.

no1:"There are no "facts" that Brahe's model was ever dominant. Brahe's theories postdated Copernicius and were primarily promulgated because of the problem with Scripture. Brahe himself died in 1601 and by the mid 1600's, the Copernician model, bolstered by Kepler and Galileo's work was predominant. By the time of Newton, that was undenialably true."

You keep saying this without evidence and expect me to take you on your word as though you have a PhD in History. I've already posted two excerpts from Wikipedia that prove otherwise - your best response to it is that "Wikipedia is full of it". You can say it 10 times or a 100 times, but without backing evidence your statement above is worthless.

Originally posted by no1marauder
But that's absurd; the telescope wasn't even used for astronomy until 1609. By 1615, our supposedly impartial judges of scientific fact had already declared the Copernician system a heresy! They certainly didn't give G much time, did they? Brahe never used anything but his naked eye but his ideas were not heresy because they were deemed to be compatible ...[text shortened]... nished for his scientific theories because it was deemed they clashed with religious beliefs.

Well, that's my "Einstein" question again. But, if Galileo was "punished for his scientific theories because it was deemed they clashed with religious beliefs," or not, hasn't he said that the church was wrong in any event?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]1. Not sure what you mean here, but I think you're referring to the "private interpretation" of Scripture. Correct?

Yep.

With regard to 2.: It's late here (Good God, have you been up all night!?!), and I have been having a great time sipping brandy all these hours we've been doing this, but--I think that No.1 and I have been unwilling to uncoup ...[text shortened]... ts re the trial back into the larger issue of justification. If that makes any sense...[/b]

(Yes, I have been up all night - I'll need to head to work in about an hour)

There are probably a number of preconceptions about Copernicus as well (his works being "banned" is one) - but maybe that's something I should tackle when I've had some sleep.

The tragedy of Galileo IMO was that he was the darling of the Church until he decided to start playing politics.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1:"YOU ARE LYING! Copernicius' books remained banned (I don't care about your nitpick) for two centuries AFTER Galileo, long after his theories were established to the scientific community's satisfaction. Explain that fact."

I don't have to. Regardless of whether you think I'm nitpicking or not, the fact is that Copernicus' works were freely avai times, but without backing evidence your statement above is worthless.

Wikipedia says no such thing. It says Brahe's theory was "influential in the late 16th and 17th century". That means it's the dominant theory into the "1700's" like you claimed? Learn how to read.

Kepler's laws in 1621 and his accurate predictions regarding Venus in 1631 ended any real scientific debate about heliocentrism.

EDIT: The Tycho Brahe society page about him admits his "world view was not widely accepted". http://www.nada.kth.se/~fred/tycho/index.html

Originally posted by lucifershammer
(Yes, I have been up all night - I'll need to head to work in about an hour)

There are probably a number of preconceptions about Copernicus as well (his works being "banned" is one) - but maybe that's something I should tackle when I've had some sleep.

The tragedy of Galileo IMO was that he was the darling of the Church until he decided to start playing politics.

He didn't play politics. You are pathetic.

Originally posted by no1marauder
But that's absurd; the telescope wasn't even used for astronomy until 1609. By 1615, our supposedly impartial judges of scientific fact had already declared the Copernician system a heresy! They certainly didn't give G much time, did they? Brahe never used anything but his naked eye but his ideas were not heresy because they were deemed to be compatible with Scripture.

If Galileo did not have the time to prove his theory, why was he letting all of Europe know that his theory was true? That's just plain intellectual dishonesty.