Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious • Hacker News Board

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#71

Post by adonovan » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

blahi wrote: post #15

edko wrote: post #6

There is no question that there was religious opposition to Galileo within the Catholic church. However, it was not unanimous, and there were some notable exceptions. José de Calasanz (saint), the founder of the Piarist order, was a friend of Galileo, and had some of the teachers of his congregation study with Galileo, so that the science they learned could be taught in his schools. Moreover, when Galileo fell in dis…

It is also worth noting that Galileo had a very big mouth and had many enemies. The publishing of this work was a perfect opportunity for them to pounce. It wasn't so much the church hating science as much people hating Galileo and using the church to an end.

In Sleepwalkers (great book), Arthur Koestler argues that many senior church figures were keen and supportive followers of Galileo's physical investigations, but repeatedly warned him not to cross the line between observing the universe, and questioning the role of God and Man. Galileo was too proud to keep to one side of that line, and Koestler laments that the current epistemological opposition of science and religion dates from that unnecessary conflict.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#72

Post by antognini » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:35 PM UTC

jordigh wrote: post #49

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=QVu…

And, in fact, modern astronomers still use epicycles when studying Galactic orbits.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#73

Post by angryredblock » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

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.

Indeed - it's shocking how many adherents to these imaginarily-discrete spheres even see room for the separation of philosophy and science. Philosophy requires science to evolve, and science requires philosophy to provide context.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#74

Post by brlewis » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:36 PM UTC

PakG1 wrote: post #43

jmcdiesel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

True. If I insisted on a totally literal interpretation of NOAA's web site I'd say they were geocentric, with all their references to sunrise and sunset.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#75

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

athenot wrote: post #57

edko wrote: post #6

There is no question that there was religious opposition to Galileo within the Catholic church. However, it was not unanimous, and there were some notable exceptions. José de Calasanz (saint), the founder of the Piarist order, was a friend of Galileo, and had some of the teachers of his congregation study with Galileo, so that the science they learned could be taught in his schools. Moreover, when Galileo fell in dis…

The opposition by the church was two-fold. It was on the grounds that Galileo had not sufficiently proven the Copernician system. Nevertheleless, it endured 9 popes before controvery was stirred up when the debate moved into the venacular and his theory started getting pitched against Scripture, instead of just continuing the debate among astronomers. But even the authors of the judgement against Galileo didn't consi…

To be willing to accept evidence to the contrary is wonderful but to limit oneself to only what can be justified in terms of "misunderstanding" not contradicting is fundamentally limiting. The truth can have no sacred cows they are a disease of the mind stunting growth forever.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#76

Post by jomamaxx » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

An amazingly reasonable thread for what could be just ignorant mud-slinging.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#77

Post by eternalban » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:39 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #54

bbctol wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so?

OP thinks the assumption of "epicycles" tips the balance of "least assumptions" to the contending theory. (He did not elaborate the full count of assumptions of either.)

I think this is a good test case for The Razzor. (tm) /g

(Not concerned here with the meta question of why even accept aphorisms as fact.)

Epicyles are observable phenomena and noted from antiquity. The Ptolemic System was an answer to the cosmic riddle that incorporated a reasonable, integral and coherent, explanation for this naturally observable phenomena. The Copernican System also explains the phenomena per its internal logic.

So Epicyle, imo, is not an assumption in either case, since it was not 'introduced' into the model. It is an inherent property of the system P and subjective side-effect (observer relative) phenomena in the system C.

The Copernican System assumes the following:

1 - Earth is not flat.

2 - Earth is rotating around its axis.

3 - Earth is rotating around the Sun (just like any other body in Solar System.)

We know these are facts today since we have proof that explains these "counter intuitive" and "unfamiliar" phenomena. We (1) experience a flat ground, (2) do not feel as if we're on surface of a moving body, and (3) clearly see :) that everything rotates around Earth!

That is the 'factual' state of affairs at some point in the Middle Ages.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#78

Post by triplesec » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

This article serves as quite a fascinating reminder of the problems of new scientific paradigms (see quote pulled out below). All the argumentation about the history of the churrch seems a lot less relevant to me than how if YOU were an astronomer at the time, how sceptical would you have been at this weird thing?

Excerpt: "Copernicus proposed that certain oddities observed in the movements of planets through the constellations were due to the fact that Earth itself was moving. Stars show no such oddities, so Copernicus had to theorise that, rather than being just beyond the planets as astronomers had traditionally supposed, stars were so incredibly distant that Earth’s motion was insignificant by comparison. But seen from Earth, stars appear as dots of certain sizes or magnitudes. The only way stars could be so incredibly distant and have such sizes was if they were all incredibly huge, every last one dwarfing the Sun. Tycho Brahe, the most prominent astronomer of the era and a favourite of the Establishm"ent, thought this was absurd, while Peter Crüger, a leading Polish mathematician, wondered how the Copernican system could ever survive in the face of the star-size problem.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#79

Post by eric_the_read » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 4:51 PM UTC

michaelsbradley wrote: post #23

Many persons who were very serious about religious faith in that time period, e.g. Catholic priests, also had great enthusiasm for rigorous mathematics and scientific advancement. For example, Fr. Paul Gudin, a Jesuit priest, was a mathematician and astronomer. He was interested in and supportive of the work of Johannes Kepler and provided him with a telescope when Kepler was experiencing financial difficulties[+]. […

In fact, Kepler, a Lutheran, was named Imperial Mathematician of the Holy Roman (i.e., Catholic) Empire.

Re: Opposition to Galileo was scientific, not just religious

#80

Post by icegreentea » Thu, Oct 06, 2016, 5:03 PM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #77

eternalban wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP thinks the assumption of "epicycles" tips the balance of "least assumptions" to the contending theory. (He did not elaborate the full count of assumptions of either.)

I think this is a good test case for The Razzor. (tm) /g (Not concerned here with the meta question of why even accept aphorisms as fact.) Epicyles are observable phenomena and noted from antiquity. The Ptolemic System was an answer to the cosmic riddle that incorporated a reasonable, integral and coherent, explanation for this naturally observable phenomena. The Copernican System also explains the phenomena per its…

Practically no one in the time period you care about thought that the Earth was flat.