Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 226 posts

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#41

Post by klodolph »

0xfeba wrote: post #22
24gttghh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be pedantic, the barycenter of the Solar System [0] is "sometimes" outside the Sun, but is also often within the limb of the Sun. [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycen...

Interesting. Does the barycenter then have a barycenter over time?

To put it the other way around, that's either the position of the barycenter relative to the sun, or the position of the sun relative to the barycenter. If you're going to pick one and say it's not moving, the barycenter is a good choice. The barycenter only moves relative to the rest of the galaxy.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#42

Post by bjt2n3904 »

michaelsbradley wrote: post #34
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #24

To be fair, the Church's influence in what we would call science back then was incredibly powerful. I think its unrealistic to see 17th century science as this secular institution like we have today. Of course the 'scientists' of the age followed a church friendly narrative. It was in their interests to do so. I think we will never really understand the chill on speech and research the Church had during the medieval…

That's really a lot of nonsense, though I'll grant you that "progress-stifling, working-against-science church" is a long-entrenched meme[+]. [+] https://www.quora.com/Why-did-science-make-little-real-progr...

Here here.

People see science as this "amoral entity" that generates truth, and anyone who opposes it to be the anti-Christ of societal progress. You have to understand that people are behind science, and people are flawed.

In other words, statistics don't lie. But the people who collect them do.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#43

Post by PakG1 »

jmcdiesel wrote: post #33
emodendroket wrote: post #19

The idea that science and religion are distinct spheres, or even things that might be in opposition to each other, has been so thoroughly established in our modern consciousnesses that it's easy to forget that in the past they didn't really make such a distinction.

Science and Religion aren't at odds with each other, they never have been. What has been at odds is religion and scientific discoveries that contradict or disprove the religious story. Heliocentric system flew in the face of the bible, and that created the problem. Bruno was burned alive for holding fast to the idea that there are more solar systems than just our own, and that the universe is basically infinite, both…

Heliocentric system flew in the face of the bible, and that created the problem.

Rather, in the face of a specific interpretation of the Bible. There are other literal interpretations of the Bible that are much more in tune with scientific knowledge of astronomy and origins, but they are not well-understood among less educated religious folk that follow the Bible. Likewise, certain interpretations of the Koran lead to terrorism, while other interpretations don't. It's interpretation that matters, especially if believers insist on literal interpretations. Sadly, few people are willing to be open-minded enough to consider the possibilities, and that often goes for all sides of a debate.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#44

Post by acqq »

Oh, please. First, the article quotes the opposition of only one person, and from that it doesn't follow its title at all. The realistic title would be "The Opposition to Galileo also at least once appeared as scientific, not just religious."

Now why I say "appeared" there? Because the arguments quoted in the text "looking through the telescopes it appeared that epicycles existed" isn't "scientifically" meaningful argument. As soon as we accept the relativity of motion, it's clear how meaningless the statement "it looks so from here" is.

Moreover, "scientific opposition" doesn't result in the house arrest by the church.

Both the Bible and that-other-newer-book- which-is-not-politically-correct-to-be-named have the verses that reflect the false understanding of the nature, and that is indisputable. It's true that there are today enough people that don't take these verses seriously, but in fact, the reasonable people did so, like seen in the article, already at least some 400 years ago.

Good for us, because otherwise most of us would be peasants today.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#45

Post by cpr »

criley2 wrote: post #35
joeclark77 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth mentioning: Galileo himself was "within the Catholic Church".

"Also worth mentioning: Galileo himself was "within the Catholic Church"." Also worth mentioning: not being in the Catholic Church during that era was called "excommunication" and was banishment from public society all together

No, excommunication simply means being outside the sacraments. It had nothing to do with public society.

Galileo was under house arrest at some point, but that had no canonical relation to any excommunication.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#46

Post by klodolph »

nkrisc wrote: post #25
0xfeba wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Does the barycenter then have a barycenter over time?

My understanding was the sun is orbiting around a constantly (though subtly) shifting point because of the complex interactions of all the planets that orbit it. Each planet orbiting the sun alone would have a different barycenter. Put them all together and you get a much more complex picture. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's not that the barycenter is moving, it's that the orbit of the sun is not even remotely circular. The barycenter only moves in response to forces outside the solar system (the galaxy).

On the other hand, if you look at the barycenter of, say, Earth + Sun, then that barycenter will move around because there are a bunch of other planets involved. But the barycenter of the solar system is more stable, due to the conservation of momentum and all that, and the distance from the solar system to the nearest objects that would influence it.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#47

Post by carleverett »

0xfeba wrote: post #22
24gttghh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to be pedantic, the barycenter of the Solar System [0] is "sometimes" outside the Sun, but is also often within the limb of the Sun. [0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycen...

Interesting. Does the barycenter then have a barycenter over time?

By definition a barycenter is a center of mass, so since a barycenter itself has no mass, it would not have it's own barycenter.

It could have a "mean location" though!

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#49

Post by jordigh »

I tl;dr'ed the article (sorry), but I wanted to say one thing about epicycles. They are not wrong and certainly can be used to explain motion, but the problem with them is that you can keep adding epicycles to fit any continuous orbit at all (this actually is because a Fourier series can converge to any continuous periodic function). This is my favourite visualisation of this fact:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#50

Post by cpr »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #24

To be fair, the Church's influence in what we would call science back then was incredibly powerful. I think its unrealistic to see 17th century science as this secular institution like we have today. Of course the 'scientists' of the age followed a church friendly narrative. It was in their interests to do so. I think we will never really understand the chill on speech and research the Church had during the medieval…

I'm sorry, but there is no revisionism about religion seeming less villainous, just the opposite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science

is fairly balanced.

Post reply on HN