Bede

Sojourner,

I gave references on the inquisition/torture in the Witches thread a while back (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to Live). As you have ignored them, I don't think I am obliged to add yet more.

Still, you seem to now accept the my position on what the church did but have now made the claim it was giving a moral lead to secular authorities in allowing them to use torture. This is an intriguing idea I haven't come across before. To demonstrate it we need to see that secular authorities had a reluctance to use torture until the church said it was OK or else only started to use it after the church did. We would further expect that secular torture would follow the churches rules for its use and be unwilling to administer torture excessively. I would be interested to see your evidence.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

lpetrich

Bede:
Augustine is quite clear that parts of the bible are metaphorical and figurative.

However, that style of interpretation easily degenerates into cafeteria theology: "it's literal if I like it, allegorical if I don't."

Also, Hugo Holbling seems to think that science is all some subjectivist fantasy world. And although the less mature sciences may certainly seem like that, the more mature ones do seem like they have access to objective truth.

I do think that Galileo had some justification for believing that his telescope produced "real" magnification -- he could use it on distant objects on the Earth's surface, objects whose appearance he knew or could easily guess. Thus, he could test his telescope by looking at some distant house, and since he'd know what houses are likely to look like, he'd have an idea of how well his 'scope was doing.

Such an empirical approach could be used to work out how trustworthy one's telescope is in the absence of a theory of optics; it's the same as with one's eyes.

Changing the telescope's aim provides an additional test, since an artifact would travel with the telescope, and not with the objects viewed.

And if his telescope was as bad as some people claim it was, then how could he have made his discoveries? I wonder if anyone has done experiments in creating imitations of Galileo's telescope and finding the lowest quality that could enable one to see what Galileo had seen.

And yes, I have used telescopes.

Asha'man

As I remember, Galileo's made three main observations that strongly supported his position against the church.

The first was observing the moon. He was able to see craters and mountains on the surface of the moon, proving that it wasn’t the perfect sphere that the church taught it was. When the terminator (day/night boundary) is visible, the shadows of such surface features are clear and obvious using low power and poor optics. I have observed such features myself using hand-held binoculars. The reality of such features can be confirmed simply by making multiple observations a month apart, and looking for the same features using different optics.

The second observation was of Venus, which showed phases. Venus is a harder target than the moon, and requires better optics. In addition, phases alone don’t really prove a heliocentric model. But any sort of phasing is utterly unexplained using the earth centric model, since Venus should not be able to jump out of it’s circle to move behind the sun.

The third observation, however, is pretty much rock solid. This is the observation of 4 moons orbiting Jupiter. Again, these moons are visible in handheld binoculars, as is the disk of the planet. Nightly observation of the moons will clearly demonstrate that they are moving in relationship to Jupiter, which is exactly what Galileo’s notes show he recorded. In addition, the moons regularly pass in front or behind the planet. I don’t know how good Galileo’s telescope was, but I have seen the shadow of a moon on the face of Jupiter using my own 3” telescope. It isn’t too difficult to notice that sometimes the moons leave shadows (passing in front of the planet), and sometimes they don’t leave shadows (passing behind). With regular observations, and good notes, the only reasonable conclusion is that the moons are orbiting around Jupiter, not the Sun.

These observations are easy to make, and the conclusions are pretty damn obvious. If the church said there wasn’t proof of what Galileo was suggesting, it was because they didn’t look, not because such proof wasn’t available.

Bede

Asha'man,

Of the three peices of evidence you present, none even suggests that the earth is moving around the sun, but merely that Aristotle's model is not perfect. But everyone already knew that.

Some notes:

Galileo's own sketches of the moon (reproduced in Feyerabend's Against Method) are completely different from the object we can see in the sky, clearly showing the matter was not so clear cut as you suggest.

The phases of Venus are predicted by any model where this planet orbits the sun. This was suggested in the fifth century by Martinus Capella, the ninth century by John Scotus Eruigena and the sixteenth by Tycho Brahe. All these works were familiar to Galileo's contemporaries. None requires a moving earth.

The moons of Jupiter mean only that not all bodies must orbit the earth only. This was interesting but again, did not require that the earth itself must be orbiting something else.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Hugo Holbling

Dear Sojourner,

Agreed. Bede suspected as much.

I understand. This view makes no sense to me at all, being based on several metaphysical assumptions that i hinted at previously (of which more below). I don't suggest that you shouldn't hold them, but it always strikes me as strange when people here are critical of other such steps in theology.

Unfortunately saying that a theory is "better" does not imply the existence of an asymptotic system of closer approximation. When you say that a view is measured, therein lies the problem: you must assume that something exists against which to measure the approximation and then use another measure entirely to guage the level of agreement. However, this requires a further meta-measurement to show that the second measure is accurate (again based on another assumption), and so on ad infinitum. Instrumentalism doesn't suffer from this difficulty in quite the same way.

Galileo was not banned from using his telescope and he gave public demonstrations of it as part of his attempts to redescribe the terms of argument; indeed, he often did so from the gardens or grounds of churchmen. It wasn't a "more embellished description" because Kuhn's point was that the telescopic data did not lead to the eventual success of the Copernican model and only became important after the fact.

So you say. This is an overtly metaphysical claim and directly akin to a theist insistence of the presence of God. If i were to make such a claim, you would no doubt criticise me for it in no uncertain terms. As for superior or not, this depends entirely on how you define those terms. In days gone by, they were understood as being better or worse approximations to truth, but nowadays more pragmatic or instrumentalist conceptions are used, precisely to avoid the metaphysical insistence that you use.

I must admit that i enjoy debating with you so much that i am inclined to disagree with everything you say.

I don't believe i said it was. I'd be loathed and decidely unimpressed by any attempt to impose a calculus or probabilistic view on the demarcation problem.

Perhaps, but i'm not doing so. It seems you are viewing my disagreement in black-or-white terms: i'm not for Galileo, so i must be for the Church. However, that completely misses what i hope was the subtlety of my argument - i don't have a camp to defend in this discussion; i merely oppose what i think is a simplistic reading of this episode. If someone were to claim that it was a good thing that Galileo got into trouble, i'd attack it just as surely.

Fancy asking a Feyerabendian (so-called by the two of you, at any rate) if any rules are being broken. The first is metaphysical precisely because it is supposedly based on an assumed physical reality that needn't be posited for science to "work", as the instrumentalists are at pains to point out.

I tested the predictive power of my model of your behaviour by guessing you'd say that.

This doesn't help you, i'm afraid. You assume that reality is described by the criteria you advocate, which merely (again) takes as given what is to be proven. In addition, you overlook the huge problems with falsification as a demarcation criterion that even Popper himself realised before Lakatos tore it to pieces.

I'm not into metaphysics at all, which is why i always skillfully avoid such questions.

This one i can answer: yes.

Yes - this isn't lost on me and i very much appreciate it.

And just to prove the point:



Thanks! I bid you the same yourself.

lpetrich

Bede:
Galileo's own sketches of the moon (reproduced in Feyerabend's Against Method) are completely different from the object we can see in the sky, clearly showing the matter was not so clear cut as you suggest.

I'm not sure what Feyerabend's point is supposed to be.

However, I checked this matter out for myself; with an Internet search I quickly found both Galileo's sketches and some modern-day pictures. Galileo's sketches were for the half-moon phase, meaning that I could find modern-day pictures with Internet searches for "first quarter" and "last quarter".

I did a comparison, and I conclude that they are inaccurate in the sense that the features are in the "wrong" places or have the "wrong" sizes. In particular, there is a big crater toward the south that is not apparent in the "real" pictures. Galileo may have been exaggerating some smaller crater for effect.

Telescope artifacts cannot produce such errors, because errors in the optics will produce blurring, the out-of-focus appearance.

And Bede and Hugo Holbling, if you don't believe me, try studying some optics. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in postmodernist "philosophy".

Sojourner553

To Ipetrich, NOGO, etc:


Actually I agree with Bede/Hugo that the Catholic Church should not be faulted, per se, for failing to RECOGNIZE the importance of Galileo’s proofs for heliocentrism:


NOT for the reasons THEY listed. Why?:

· I disagreed with Hugo’s article from the Catholic Encyclopedia that Galileo’s science was not of enough merit to convince his contemporaries:

--Kepler obviously agreed with Galileo (the article omits Kepler is a proponent of Galileo’s theory—an oversight? Also, there are probably good reasons why the others listed as “against” shouldn’t really count. Ie:

--Galileo corresponded with Kepler that prior to 1604 (again after Brahe died) he did not come out publicly for heliocentricism because he did not want to incur the wrath of the Catholic Church. If Galileo took this position, why is it not reasonable to assume others – such as Francis Bacon – also had the same fear of censure from the Catholic Church?

--Cardinal Bellarmine probably did not have the scientific background to understand the import of Galileo’s discoveries, no matter how brilliant he was in other fields.


Still there are important reasons why I argue FOR Bede/Hugo (ok: without Hugo’s metaphysics, smile):


· During the times of Galileo the scientific tradition was not established in Western society. Previously all men of learning used philosophy and metaphysics (with a little logic from Aristotle) as the method (the ONLY method outside of revelation) for ascertaining truth.

· It was Isaac Newton who produced the successes from using physics that changed the paradigm whereby science was a respected new field. Isaac Newton was born in the year Galileo died!

· To expect Church scholars/authorities to accept Galileo’s conclusions, would be the equivalent of asking scientists to throw out a theory – say evolution – because one set of experiments proved contra to it. Meaning there was not enough of a body of science available (with theories tying all the data together) to integrate with Galileo’s experiments to make this a convincing case for them.



Of course there was bias on the part of the Catholic Church authorities:

· But to be comparable, how many time does one hear how an (often old) famous scientist refuses to relinquish a pet theory --EVEN WHEN BETTER EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE, HE HANGS ON TO IT!
· How many people refuse to listen to anything they don’t want to hear is true anyway – As one example. Astrology: Does not both religion and science teach astrology is worthless?

Bias is not something unique to the Catholic Church. It appears to be part of human nature. Unfortunately another ugly aspect of human nature is to abuse power – when one has it to abuse, of course!

* The Catholic Church wielded great power during the time of Galileo. (Protestants had just started to be an important force—more on that later.) Do I think the abuses of power at the Trial of Galileo were unique to Catholics? No, I think the same would have happened if say, the Southern Baptists wielded a monopoly of power over the same time; same as with Marxist Communists, Ayn Rand (no hate mail on this one please) – probably even some from the Secular web (religious and areligious) – that is if one had absolute power with no fear of recourse.

* Would every group do this if they had the power? No? Buddhists come to mind as one example. It probably has to do with how they relate to nature (a part of not separate). But I don’t know of anyone on this board who is ready to become a Buddhist for this one reason either.

* Another interesting defense is that many Catholics had turn ultra-conservative Why? The Protestant Reformation, later followed by the Counter Reformation made the public more reactionary. With what is going on now in the US under Bush since 9/11, one sees the power of fear at work, and how desires for revenge make people more open for blood lust.


So far I have shown where I agree with Bede Hugo. Now here is where I part company:

While I sympathize they feel themselves possibly in defense mode to protect the Catholic Church at all costs from RELIGIOUS based attacks, to me they go to far!

I would argue that is it important to acknowledge past mistakes (yes warts) of the Church -- why?


The old adage recaps it well: He who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.

To gloss over abuses gives the impression either
(1) no abuses really took place, and therefore
(2) recreating the environment that created the abuses is not something to avoid.

This is especially important because especially those who are virtually IGNORANT OF HISTORY –show the most INTOLERANCE for views other than their own. In their minds their Church (or ideology) never had any history of abuses. Therefore they feel righteous indignation when others dare to disagree and it is so “clear” to them that there can be any other interpretation other than theirs.

This is what motivates me to post. I have seen NOGO post similarly about himself.

Bede is a great guy. But it seems to me Bede (you if reading this) fancies himself a White Knight champion of the Catholic Church fending off ALL (emphasis ALL) criticisms in a battle for the sake of religion itself.

He will make tepid comments here or there, showing HE personally feels responsible or shamed when the Church has done something indefensible. (To me why pretend ANY institution is perfect? Can he not fit this within a religious framework the fact that ALL human institutions will be “less than” perfect? Secular or religious?

This drives him (in my opinion) to gloss over/ apologize as “immaterial” bad past abuses.


Examples:

· “Only” 50,000-100,000 witches were killed—instead of the whopping 6 million reported previously by some anti-religious bigot (So what about the 6 million? To me, 100 is a big number to be falsely accused/executed. Indeed – “One” is a big number if “I” am “the one”!) Does it make such a BIG difference if say 10 people or 1000 people are falsely executed in the US? No! The Catholic Church is primarily made up of good people, who would have never done this purposefully. To me, this demonstrates the power of superstition (then and now) – and the importance of individual rights/freedom to counteract it!

· Per Bede, the Catholic Church only rarely used torture during interrogation. Normally torture was conducted by secular authorities. (Ask him though if there was any joint participation/Did the Church condemn the Secular torture as wrong and Bede’ll thunder you need to read a book, or the most recent he doesn’t have to reply because tit for tat, some question he asked once was never answered – (whatever that was, smile)

To me, this demonstrates how attitudes DO change. The Church was complicit with secular authorities with the use of harsh punishments (including torture). Part of this was a siege mentality (the 9/11 effect, agreed). A good response would be to point out what the Catholic Church has done today to counteract this. I appreciate the efforts of the pope on peace today for example.


So in summary. Galileo’s Trial is important to me--NOT as an abuse by religion! Instead it is important as an abuse of POWER. It was natural for the Catholic Church to have been the instigator of opposing views back then, as it wielded such absolute power for so long. As I have demonstrated above, this appears to be a common trait, definitely not unique to Catholics.

That’s why I insist the Trial was about intellectual freedom – not religion. Attacks on intellectual freedom can come from any ideology, not just religion. Today Catholics deserve great marks for their world leadership role on peace. (Just don’t get me started about their PAST, when they wielded too much power…).




Sojourner

Sojourner553

Hi Hugo,

I am not very good with this metaphysical thing, so try and be patient with me:

Can you explain the Demarcation Problem for me. Specifically, I would like to see you discuss within this framework why-- if presumably we know today Heliocentricism is a better theory then Geocentrism, would it also not have been a better theory during Galileo's time?

Second, how is this any different than the tree in the forest that doesn't make a sound if no one is listening? (only applies if you answer negative in the first paragraph): ie why would heliocentricism not be the superior view ONLY because the environment of the time did not recognize it as such.

Regarding you do not like the better, equal, worse demarcation--seems to me if things are on a spiritual plane like which is better a mother's love for her daughter or her mother --> this would be a "same" (unless you are referring to an individual and she really dislikes her mother -- . Ding, there goes the analyst in me again...)





Last (if this is not too much) why not comment on the Middle Ground solution. It is the one in practice in democratic societies today. Seems like it works well to me. (You can still disagree--Smile. Just don't avoid the question...)

You would not like to see the Creationists get minority priviledges maybe? I say if they can prove any of their case, more power to them -- it just has to be REAL evidence and honestly argued.

Sojourner

NOGO

Bede, once again, wants to draw a very fine live between the Church and the "secular authorities". Personally, I find such an arguement a joke and here is why.

When I was young my father told me many times that "we" are the Church of Christ, that the Church is more than just the building and priests. Indeed, what can be attributed to Christianity is not just the acts of its clergy.

For example since we touched on the subject again.
Witches were burnt alive.
Whether it was a cleric who performed this act or some secular Christian authority is totally irrelevant.

What is relevant is that such people can deploy such cruelty and inhumanity because of two basic reasons

Mt13:49 ... the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This and many other passages clearly refer to poeple being burned alive and thus gives

1) not only the moral justification for killing wicked people like witches but also
2) the God approved method

Tyler Durden

"Philosophy of science without history of science is empty, while history of science without philosophy of science is blind."

Far too many people who have posted here in this thread are blind to their tone-deafness. Apparently nobody besides Hugo Holbling has the foggiest notion what's wrong with "realism," and what alternatives there are in the philosophy of science: superrealism, instrumentalism and descriptivism.