The Catholic Church has come around, a bit… Galileo is in from the cold.
Along with the birth of Jesus, perhaps tomorrow we can reflect on all that Isaac Newton has given to the world. He too was born on Christmas Day.
Journey to Perplexity
IF YOU’RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN YOU’RE PART OF THE PROBLEM…BUT WHAT IF YOU’RE NOT PART OF THE PROBLEM – THEN WHAT ARE YOU?
Nothing About Me
I swim. I eat fish. I have lots of time to think. Am I a slug?
More in "By Way of Explanation."Talk:
Lichanos on COVID19 in the USA Lichanos on COVID19 in the USA Anonymous on COVID19 in the USA Guy Savage on COVID19 in the USA 4TimesAYear on Average Global Temperature? 4TimesAYear on Average Global Temperature? manofroma on 2001: A Space Odyssey… manofroma on 2001: A Space Odyssey…
One of his reasons for promoting the Copernican system was the phenomenon of the tides. He said they proved that the earth turned on its axis and dismissed the idea that the tides could be caused by the moon. The church definitely overreacted, but most of the major point of contetion was the Galileo, a Catholic, would not follow through on his promises to the Church about not teaching his idea as fact. In fact more than a few bishops and high ranking Catholic clergy also believed in the heliocentric model of the universe. The situation is a bit more complicated than typically reported.
The situation is a bit more complicated than typically reported.
Yes, as usual. I was aware of this. Scientists make deals with Power too.
…not teaching his ideas as a fact.
Interesting parallel to Creationism, etc. here. How well established was the Copernican system in G’s day? Was he overreaching? I don’t know – we see it in hindsight. Of course, why should the church even be involved in this? More hindsight.
Personally, I don’t think the analogy with ID etc. is valid today. Things have moved on. We have, or should have a better understanding of what “theory” means in science and how it relates to facts.
BTW, seems G was totally wrong about the tides bit. Why did he think this? Was he supporting the right conclusion for the wrong reasons? Not valid in science!
Thanks for your comment!