Galileo, Inchofer, and Popper

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows:

1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's time.

2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology.


p. 318 ‘However, false is not useless. The motion supposed by Copernicus
can be employed in calculations, and might even be useful to the faith
if mathematicians emphasized their falsity along with their utility.
Here Inchofer had in mind the minor truth later rediscovered by Karl
Popper: “mathematicians [should] … work more and more toward trying to
falsify theories rather than to defend them“. To this anticipation of
modern epistemology Inchofer added a pinch of ancient wisdom, Urban’s
Simple in the words of the Preacher: “no man can find out the work that
God maketh from beginning to end.”‘

Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/12/galileo-inchofer-and-popper.html

[meekerdb]

On 1/2/2013 10:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows:
>
> 1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's time.
>
> 2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology.
>
>

> p. 318 �However, false is not useless. The motion supposed by Copernicus can be employed
> in calculations,

The Copernican model was less accurate than the Ptolemaic one. It wasn't until Kepler and
elliptical orbits that the heliocentric model became superior for celestial predictions.

> and might even be useful to the faith if mathematicians emphasized their falsity along
> with their utility. Here Inchofer had in mind the minor truth later rediscovered by

> Karl Popper: �mathematicians [should] � work more and more toward trying to falsify
> theories rather than to defend them�.

This seems confused. Mathematicians prove theorems from axioms - they don't have theories
that can be falsified. At worst they may think a proof is valid when it's not. He must
have been using "mathematician" carelessly to mean scientist.

Brent
I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His reputation if He did not.
--- Jules Renard

> To this anticipation of modern epistemology Inchofer added a pinch of ancient wisdom,

> Urban�s Simple in the words of the Preacher: �no man can find out the work that
> God maketh from beginning to end.��
>
> Evgenii

[Bruno Marchal]

On 02 Jan 2013, at 21:01, meekerdb wrote:

> On 1/2/2013 10:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows:
>>
>> 1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's time.
>>
>> 2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology.
>>
>>

>> p. 318 ‘However, false is not useless. The motion supposed by

>> Copernicus can be employed in calculations,
>
> The Copernican model was less accurate than the Ptolemaic one. It
> wasn't until Kepler and elliptical orbits that the heliocentric
> model became superior for celestial predictions.

Interesting.

>
>> and might even be useful to the faith if mathematicians emphasized
>> their falsity along with their utility. Here Inchofer had in mind

>> the minor truth later rediscovered by Karl Popper: “mathematicians
>> [should] … work more and more toward trying to falsify theories
>> rather than to defend them“.

>
> This seems confused. Mathematicians prove theorems from axioms -
> they don't have theories that can be falsified.

That's not true. Most first theories of set, lambda term, combinator
have been falsified. It took time for some.
The NF theory of set might still be. The falsification is a proof of a
contradiction in the theory.

A different example are the fertile conjecture. many results in number
theory are proved from assuming the Riemann hypothesis, which might be
falsified, even empirically (by finding a zero of the zeta function
out of the critical line).

Likewise, many result in theoretical computer science remains on the
assumption P = NP, and might be all falsified in the case someone
prove P = NP.

Etc.

Bruno

> At worst they may think a proof is valid when it's not. He must
> have been using "mathematician" carelessly to mean scientist.
>
> Brent
> I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for His
> reputation if He did not.
> --- Jules Renard
>
>
>> To this anticipation of modern epistemology Inchofer added a pinch

>> of ancient wisdom, Urban’s Simple in the words of the Preacher: “no

>> man can find out the work that

>> God maketh from beginning to end.”‘
>>
>> Evgenii
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

[Evgenii Rudnyi]

On 02.01.2013 21:01 meekerdb said the following:

> On 1/2/2013 10:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>> A nice quote from Galileo by John L. Heilbron that shows:
>>
>> 1) One could trace the falsifiability to Jesuits of Galileo's
>> time.
>>
>> 2) It could be a link between falsifiability and theology.
>>
>>
>> p. 318 �However, false is not useless. The motion supposed by
>> Copernicus can be employed in calculations,
>
> The Copernican model was less accurate than the Ptolemaic one. It
> wasn't until Kepler and elliptical orbits that the heliocentric model
> became superior for celestial predictions.

I guess, the advantage of the Copernican system was not the accuracy but
rather relative simplicity. In my understanding it was easier to use the
Copernican model for practical needs.

By the way, Galileo did not like elliptical orbits. First, it did not
fit his world view: according to Galileo, an orbit of a planet must be
circular. Second, Kepler was a Protestant and a good Catholic at
Galileo's time was sure that Protestants were always wrong.

>> and might even be useful to the faith if mathematicians emphasized
>> their falsity along with their utility. Here Inchofer had in mind
>> the minor truth later rediscovered by Karl Popper: �mathematicians
>> [should] � work more and more toward trying to falsify theories
>> rather than to defend them�.
>
> This seems confused. Mathematicians prove theorems from axioms -
> they don't have theories that can be falsified. At worst they may
> think a proof is valid when it's not. He must have been using
> "mathematician" carelessly to mean scientist.

At Galileo's time, there were philosophers and mathematicians. A
philosopher was simultaneously a physicist (physicists as such did not
exist). Mathematicians have been paid much less as philosophers. Galileo
at the end of his career was rather an exception.

One of the main results of Galileo was bringing mathematics and physics
together (as according to Galileo, The Lord has created the world
according to the laws of mathematics).

By the way, according to Prof Peterson, mathematical physics has started
with Galileo's paper about the Inferno

Two Lectures to the Florentine Academy
On the Shape, Location and Size of Dante�s Inferno
by Galileo Galilei, 1588
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mpeterso/galileo/inferno.html

Evgenii