91–100 of 226 posts
This is basically the thesis of Paul Feyerabend who used it as his main argument against there being a scientific method. His book "Against Method" is one of the best works on Philosophy of Science I've read during my university education.
"Against Method" is freely available here: http://mcps.umn.edu/assets/pdf/4.2.1_Feyerabend.pdf
Strangely, the article omits a reference to the preferred model of the time, namely the Tychonic system [1]. In the Tychonic system, all the planets revolve around the Sun, but the Sun and moon revolve around the Earth. It was seen to be a very tidy theory that took advantage of the best aspects of the Copernican theory, but resolved the problem of the lack of observed parallax. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyc…
Brahe had theorised that all planets circled the Sun, while it circled Earth. Locher noted that Brahe might be right, but what was clear was that the telescope supported Ptolemy.
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…
As someone who is both Catholic and a software engineer, I find quite the opposite - people today are all too quick to villainize religion in general and Catholics in particular. I see people point out short comings that make up a relatively minor percentage of Church's history and impact on society, and completely leave out things like the preservation of Classical works, expenditures on science, the development of…
I find that religious people find persecution everywhere (war on Christmas for example) where it doesn't exist. Its probably difficult not to considering how protective we are to things near and dear to us. Perhaps you should consider that you are not an impartial viewer here.
>loss of livelihood, others refusing to publish your work, isolation.
Which is much better than torture, death, etc. I think you're making my argument for me. We both seem to agree that when theocracies are in charge, life is much, much worse. The secular scientific system is far from perfect, but in every single way better than the theocratic one.
That is why it is important that new ideas can be discussed freely, which wasn't the case in Galileo's time.
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…
No, any belief in it or any other religion, leads to killing and oppression. As Old Man Jay says, it's the act of believing, not the belief per-se that's the issue.
When you believe that there's a god above who will reward you infinitely it's going to skew your worldly actions one way or the other. You'll do what you're told, right or wrong, and that's the #1 ingredient for ISIS, Nazis, etc.
> other literal interpretations of the Bible that are much more in tune with scientific knowledge of astronomy and origins
And there are discussion of Star Wars that attempt to explain the Death Star in terms of the economic power of the empire. If you tried hard-enough you could see Winnie-the-Pooh as a messiah-figure and use the story as a creation allegory, but it wouldn't give you any value. You can't retcon fact into a work of fiction.
> all sides of a debate.
Unlike the evening news, having a differing opinion doesn't make something a debate. In real-life the right answer is rarely an average of all answers.
It's easy to dismiss religion, and entirely reasonable to do so, as it is to dismiss alien-made crop circles.
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…
Bruno was burned alive for being a complete prat, and pissing off all the wrong people, actually. Formally, he was condemned because: > In the spring of 1599, the trial was begun before a commission of the Roman Inquisition, and, after the accused had been granted several terms of respite in which to retract his errors, he was finally condemned (January, 1600), handed over to the secular power (8 February), and burne…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Belief virtually requires a closed mind, since an open mind would allow observation that contradicts the belief. It's not sad, it's a feature.
Let's say that blind belief requires a closed mind. Everyone at the end of the day relies on faith at some level or other. Even scientists believe in their hypotheses until their hypotheses are proven wrong. Then they change their beliefs. The fact of the matter is that everyone still believes in something at all times. I have yet to meet a scientist who precludes his everyday thoughts with, "well, then again, it's a…
And yet you've also never met a scientist who says: "This is my current hypothesis so I've vanquished all possibility of doubt. I'm going to publish it without even testing because it MUST be right."
You should entertain the notion that the word means something entirely different to religious people than to others.
> The fact of the matter is that everyone still believes in something at all times.
Even if that were true, the only reason you're saying it is to show that even scientists make that mistake. You're trying to drag them down to your level, hoping the equivalence lends weight to your unsupported ideas.
The difference, to the degree that belief isn't just an empty word to a scientist, is that it's not seen as a good thing in the scientific community. You might believe that god ensures your slippers remain under the bed where you left them but if you use that in an argument nobody will take you seriously and there's no social pressure to do so.
Of course there was scientific opposition to Galileo. Scientific ideas get hammered out through debate and disagreement. New ideas in science often take decades or even centuries to fully develop and reach broad acceptance. That is why it is important that new ideas can be discussed freely, which wasn't the case in Galileo's time.