NOGO

I agree that the link is sensationalistic and at times stretched but Bede should show us why it is worthless and entirely wrong.

This, of course, is only implied by what Bede wrote.
Bede very carefully omitted to comment on the link itself but instead tells us that in his opinion everything that this polemicist has written on this site is nothing but falsehoods.

Now doesn't that contribute a lot to the discussion.

Lafcadio

Some Islamic astronomers (Ibn al-Haytham) expressed their doubts (I'm not sure if they actually proposed new ways to describe the orbits of the planets), some made attempts to change the whole system (Ibn al-Bitruji) but some of them (Ibn al-Kammad) compiled new sets of tables (zîj) which eventually were gathered as Toledan tables which later they were adapted by Christians as Alfonsine tables. Christian scholars like John of Saxony contributed to the latter. Regiomontanus which I already mentioned and Peurbach, while expressing their doubts on various aspects of Ptolemy's view, improved/corrected the data existent in Alfonsine tables with new astronomic observations.

I already explained what I ment so I don't understand your challange. I'm not reducing Copernicus, I'm showing that between geocentrism and heliocentrism was a gradually slope, a Kuhnian swap of paradigms.

It was not until Kepler when heliocentric system was significantly more accurate than Ptolemeic one (the famous Rudolphine tables). Copernicus, keeping circular orbits still had similar problems with the accuracy of data. Maybe that's why a great astronomer like Brahe wasn't persuaded by Copernican view.

Copernicus used Regiomontanus' epitome and other medieval works, hence he had access not only to Ptolemy but also to various interpretations and critiques on Ptolemy. Actually there were no ancient Greek documents, were translations and studies of those Greek works.

Lafcadio

I'm not talking of such a thing.

The knowledge is forgettable, the ways of life are changeable. Let's look at the invasion of Dorians in Greece. Or at the invasion of Angles and Saxons in England. Do you think they massacred the entire population? Some things remain (legends, customs etc.) but all the knowledge that depends on education, on a certain type of society will fade.

How?

This is not true for the Western Europe I pictured (approx from 5th to 7th century). I also shown why "science" (better let's call it natural philosophy) was irrelevant when I talked about the education of those times.

Yes, there's such a shift. The migration from a well developed urban society to a rural society of warriors.

Bede

Also of interest is the suggestion by John Scotus Eruigena in the nith century that the other planets circled the sun which circled the earth (much like Brahe's idea) deserves a mention.

I've analysed what Copernicus did and didn't say, as well as his sources, in some detail here.

Best wishes

Bede

Lafcadio

IIRC Erigena was no astronomer, nor close to natural philosophy.

NOGO

As Bede often suggests do not get your information from google and web trash. With such opinion of the web I always wondered why Bede himself contributes.

Here Bede is definitely out of his field and it shows. Instead of concetrating on the science he goes on and on about Copernicus' PR to win people over to his ideas.

The mood is set right from the start with this statement.

"Scientific truth is largely determined by authority and this has always been so."

So there you have it.
The earth orbits the sun not because it actually orbits the sun but because some AUTHORITY says it orbits the sun. If some day some authority would say that the sun orbits the earth then that will be science as well.

There is no difference between science and religion because obviously religion is entirely determined by authority, has always been and will always be.

Christians have always been divided. After 2000 years of the stuff, divisions as a strong as every and there is no hope in sight on any eventual convergence. The only time that there was unity was when it was imposed by force.

What about science?
Science is convergent. Yes there is disagreements at first but over time there is convergence.
The same Newtonian physics is taught in New York as it is taught in Pekin, Tokyo and all over the world.
Never mind that Newtonian physics was proven wrong.
It is taught because it works.
Science has the kind of convergence which Christianity can only dream of.
So one should not be surprized at Bede's attempt to level the field.

Copernicus' theory was better than Ptolemy's because it explained things which the other theory did not explain. For example nobody before Copernicus could explain why planets suddenly changed directions in their orbits. Copernicus did not aim to explain this; this simply fell into place as a result of his recontruction of the solar system.

By removing the daily rotation of the observer from the orbits of all the celestial bodies a new structure of the solar system emerged. This new system explained many things which the old could not explain.

The superiority of the Coperninian system was recognized by people like Kepler who totally set the Ptolemaic system aside and worked to improve the new system instead.

Bede says that there was no proof that the new system was real.
When Einstein prublish his theory on relativity in 1905 there was no proof either. So what?
Relativity explained what could not be explained before and that is science too.

Bede

My essay is based on what Copernicus says rather than trying to reflect our our beliefs back onto him. He did think his system was better but not for the reasons that NOGO suggests (NOGO might consider reading De revolutionibus, or at least the first book and a half as the rest is pretty solid maths).

The reason Copernicus says his model was better is that it sticks more closely than Ptolemy to the principles of motion laid out by Aristotle. The most important was the principle of uniform circular motion which Copernicus does his best to preserve despite his need for epicycles. In other words, his central motivation was an idea that we now know to be complete wrong. Ironic, isn't it?

Best wishes

Bede





The superiority of the Coperninian system was recognized by people like Kepler who totally set the Ptolemaic system aside and worked to improve the new system instead.

Bede says that there was no proof that the new system was real.
When Einstein prublish his theory on relativity in 1905 there was no proof either. So what?
Relativity explained what could not be explained before and that is science too.[/QUOTE]

countjulian

My friend Bede! I made a mistake in a post I put up earlier. You responded, and said:

I was actually referring to the Oxford history of the Classical World (a very fine reference book on antiquity, BTW). On page 187, in the chapter "Greek Historians", Oswyn Murry says "Later Christians generations in fact tried to transform the individualistic group of historical writings into a tradition of the Old Testament type, and succeeded through instinct or economy of effort in selecting a 'chain of histories', so that only one historical account now survives each for each period, and these accounts give a relatively continuous narrative of the ancient world. A proper history of Greek history writing must take due notice of what has been lost as well as of what has survived. (the case of Photius reading Justus of Tiberius and finding no mention of Jesus and the history's subsequent disappearance from the historical record, especially when juxtaposed with the (comparatively) voluminous survival of Josephus, illustrates this well)" It can hardly surprise, us then, that they would allow only what they wanted to survive to survive, (as MacMullen said, "the literature passed through paganisms enemies" or something similar) and this process no doubt went on with other forms and types of writing, including scientific literature, too.

I do not have time to rebut your entire post, so I will confide myself to this one part. I am afraid, my friend, that you completely missed the point. Actually, in a roundabout way, you have struck directly at my point; with all the eloquence of a drunk sloshing through his own puke you have illustrated what I was trying to say. When the Roman Empire converted and bent half of its resources to enforcing doctrinal supremacy, and the other half towards building up the Church, it was sapping the army of its strength, depleting of the forces it needed to win wars, forcing the Romans to barbarize their armies and turning the frontier guards into the pathetic peasant militia of the middle ages. This is relevant because, no matter what you and St. Ambrose choose to believe, suppressing idolatry and schism in the Church had no effect whatsoever on the continuing existence of the Roman Empire, except to drag it down. Persecuting the Empire's own people and hiring out everyone else to the Church was simply not necessary like defending the empire was. And when the Empire fell, so did classical science.
Since we are on Oxford History of the Classical World, another interesting section is Envoi: On Taking Leave of Antiquity, Henry Chadwick (a Christian scholar if ever there was one) says "Did Rome's conversion to Christianity directly cause or indirectly contribute to the end of the ancient world? Is there truth (even if now drastically reformulated in secular terms) in the contention of those ... who thought Alaric's capture of Rome in 410 a consequence of Rome's abandonment of the old gods, the closing of temples in 391, and the prohibition of pagan sacrifice?... A more plausible answer than pacifism (or what Gibbon memorably called the Christian preaching of patience and pusillanimity) is that the Church provided an alternative society with a rival career structure and different loyalties... It drew into its power structure men ambitious, not necessarily for themselves, but for the cause they served, who might well have been useful soldiers or administrators or traders or manufacturers increasing the material wealth of society instead of channeling it into poor relief (the extant to which poor relief played a part in Christian finances of the time is a matter of, shall we say, contention-- Count Julian) or noble basilicas like the Ravenna churches... Was it in the fourth and fifth century that it [the church] employed too many?(note that this is one of Kenneth Humphreys main theories on www.jesusneverexisted.com-- Count Julian)...There is one unquestionable respect in which conversion to Christianity brought to the administration of the Empire complexities it would prefer to have done without. The Christians tended to quarrel about ever more refined points of dogma and take there disputes to the crucial point of suspending Eucharistic communion (they went a whole heck of a lot farther than that-- Count Julian) ." He goes on to list the various ways in which doctrinal disputes between Christians brought ruin to the Empire, especially in the Byzantine east when the more tolerant Muslims came around and many heretics decided to abandon the Justinian-style persecutions for the more tolerant caliphs.

Lafcadio

I can't subscribe for this tavern type of humor.

Can you bring the numbers? The income and the spendings of Roman Empire during a certain emperor.
Let's take Constantine the Great. It is known that he strenghtened the Danubian limes (Constantiniana Daphne is one fortress having his name north of Danube), it is known that he even campaigned above Danube. With what money? Those dedicated to doctrine enforcement or those dedicated to build churches? Was his expedition there part of his 'religious wars' or he was just defending the limes?

Really? Then how do you explain that the "barbarization" of Roman armies began before Christianity was a strength in the empire?

I'm not sure I'm following you. How one causes the other?
And what beliefs do I and St. Ambrose share?

Christians were also part of the Empire's own people.

Appeal to authority. Which are his arguments? Which are his evidences? I've read the paragraph before replying to it, don't worry.

Yeah, the flagellum dei leit-motif. I bet this passage is inspired from Salvianus.

There was no alternative society in Western Europe other that Roman. It took a while for the incoming Germanics to settle and build their own society.

Soldiers? In what army? Increasing the wealth of what society? Mice ran from the sinking ship.

a) The 'Christian quarrels' argument doesn't work for the Western Europe we argued about so far b) The history of the first millenium of Byzantine Empire actually contains its most glorious moments, so what specifically "ruin" refers to?

Bede

Well I must apologise to you, Count Julian, for suggesting that academics are more reliable sources than wikipedia. Murray is clearly nuts. Does he provide any evidence for his weird suppositions? Where do we learn Justus was suppressed? Has he any evidence at all that the ad hoc survival of ancient historians was anything other than coincidence or a reflection of their literary importance? He's not even factually correct to say we have a single narrative. Polybius and Livy overlap. We have masses on the centuries on each side of 1AD and practically nothing for the next two. Lots for the fourth to sixth century, bugger all for the seventh and eighth. Two accounts of Alexander the Great, very little for the Hellenistic period.

Anyway, if this is the sort of thing that allegations of the loss of pagan literature are based on, my case is even stronger than I thought. Weird.

Best wishes

Bede