OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

[Fyron]

If the Church simply disagreed with Galileo's mathematics, then the Pope would not have threatened to excommunicate Galileo if he did not publicly renounce his works.

[Chronon]

I hope that my post did not imply that the only issue was mathematics. My point was that Galileo had not conclusively proven his argument; there remained some "scientific" ammunition for his adversaries - enough so that his views could be attacked on more than just theological grounds.

But, as was said earlier, the real issue was the Church's refusal to give up authority in the realm of physical reality, and Galileo's ill advised attempt to push the Church in that direction by making his view about biblical exegesis public. When he argued that the Bible should be read metaphorically, that was a clear intrusion into the Church's philosophical domain.

Getting back to your main argument that the Church held back science, I think the story is much more complex than the simple narrative given in the old textbooks. Yes, there was some conservatism in the Church, and yes, the condemnation of Galileo was a big mistake (one that has only recently been corrected). But, it is impossible to separate science from Christianity in the early modern period (1500-1789), because the vast majority of the leading figures in the history of science worked within a Christian framework (including Newton, whose work brought God back into the picture because of the mysterious, almost supernatural, force of gravity - it was not a strictly mechanical or material phenomenon). So, I do not think it is really useful to say that the Church held back scientific progress in any systematic way. The two are inextricably connected, and it is only our 21st-century perspective that creates such a clear cut dichotomy between church and science.

In any case, I imagine that neither one of us will convince the other. I have enjoyed the discussion, though. So, since I've contributed to a digression, I should probably wrap this up and bring the thread back on topic.

I have always found your SEIV advice useful, and I would most certainly would rate you a five (if I were able). Thanks again for your contributions to the forum.

[ March 09, 2003, 20:48: Message edited by: Chronon ]

[Fyron]

that was a clear intrusion into the Church's philosophical domain.

The Church does not have a philosophical domain. It does not provide logical arguments for why it is right, it just says that what it says is right, period. So, there is no philosophy about it.

But, it is impossible to separate science from Christianity in the early modern period (1500-1789)

My argument was that the Church held back advancement during the European Dark Ages, not during this period. I just could not think of any specific examples of people during the European Dark Ages that were persecuted for thinking for themselves.

[ March 09, 2003, 21:20: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Chronon]

Since we're off topic, I thought I should open a new thread for this discussion. You'll find it here

[Fyron]

This thread is already 100% off topic. Opening a new thread is redundant.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Chronon:
the Tychonic system. Tycho Brahe, perhaps the greatest observational astronomer of the time, had created a system that could explain all of Galileo's findings and still "save the appearances" and keep the Earth at the center of the universe. His system had the Earth at the center, the Sun revolving around the Earth, and all the other planets (except our moon, of course) revolving around the Sun.

Wow, amazing. I had never heard of this guy, though I was familiar with his concept.
When did he live?
Where was he from?

And can his theory be the correct one?

[Captain Kwok]

Originally posted by Aloofi:
Wow, amazing. I had never heard of this guy, though I was familiar with his concept.
When did he live?
Where was he from?

And can his theory be the correct one?

No, his theory cannot be correct, although I don't have enough time to explain why at the moment.

However, he died from an infection after his bladder burst (That's why you should never hold it ) while he was making observations one night.