Copernican Revolution
Roger Schlafly
use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR). I am
summarizing here in case others tuned out. It started with a
discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
I contend that the original and true meaning CR is derived from
the title of Copernicus's famous book: De Revolutionibus Orbium
Coelestium (On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres), published
in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
At the other extreme is the view that CR has no scientific meaning,
and only refers to an intellectual revolution in which the
dominant paradigm of text-based authority was replaced by
scientific truths.
A book on this subject is:
Revolution in Science by I. Bernard Cohen (1985)
Postings with summaries from the book:
http://x58.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714408969
http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714415475
This book attacks use of the term CR to describe an intellectual
revolution because the bigger advances in that subject came from
Kepler, Newton, and others. Use of the term "revolution" to
describe an intellectual revolution only came much later.
I am suggesting that the term CR has been co-opted by Darwinist-
atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian ideologues in the last 50 years
for leftist and pseudo-scientific propaganda purposes.
It is atheist because atheists like to believe that Copernicus
not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
but also disproved the Bible. It is Darwinist because Darwinists
believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
by analogy to Earth being just another planet. It is also Marxist
because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
lingo. It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
It is also Kuhnian because the Copernican Revolution is supposed
to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
rich hammett
> The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging
I think most of us are giggling, not raging!
You left out Jewish-Masonic
> It is atheist because atheists like to believe that Copernicus
> not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
> but also disproved the Bible. It is Darwinist because Darwinists
> believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
> by analogy to Earth being just another planet. It is also Marxist
> because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
> lingo. It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
> It is also Kuhnian because the Copernican Revolution is supposed
> to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
Your metaphors are mixing me--do shifts have mothers?
rich
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
squeamy
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging debate over the
> use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR). I am
> summarizing here in case others tuned out. It started with a
> discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
>
> I contend that the original and true meaning CR is derived from
> the title of Copernicus's famous book: De Revolutionibus Orbium
> Coelestium (On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres), published
> in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
um, ever heard of coincidence? Maybe that's not what he would have
meant had he ever spoken about revolution, but obviously looking back
on his ideas it is clear to anyone with half a brain that his
discoveries caused a "sudden or momentous change in a situation" (from
the definition of the word "revolution").
>
> At the other extreme is the view that CR has no scientific meaning,
> and only refers to an intellectual revolution in which the
> dominant paradigm of text-based authority was replaced by
> scientific truths.
I suggest that extremes be avoided as they breed zealotry. The two
interpretations are obviously both correct and not in conflict. The
theory that the earth is in angular momentum style "revolution" about
the sun was a "revolutionary"(in the spirit of cultural change) idea.
> I am suggesting that the term CR has been co-opted by Darwinist-
> atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian ideologues in the last 50 years
> for leftist and pseudo-scientific propaganda purposes.
well, you only suggest this because you are a paranoid fundamentalist
conspiracy theorist.
> It is atheist because atheists like to believe that Copernicus
> not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
> but also disproved the Bible.
the bible cannot be proven or disproven because it is not to be taken
literally. It is a good story book with wisdom and perspective on the
times in which it was written. It is the fault of those who take it
literally to try to apply it to domains in which it doesn't belong.
> It is Darwinist because Darwinists
> believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
> by analogy to Earth being just another planet.
kind of a stretch, as one has nothing to do with the other. We are just
another animal, and the Earth is just another planet, but I hardly see
where one has to do with the other. From a paranoid-schizo ego-maniacs
perspective I can see that perhaps both disturb their idea that they
are somehow super-duper special and different, but most people with
sense realize that this planet and all of the life forms on it are
extremely rare and special even if it is "just a planet" and we
are "just animals". The use of the word "just" their is misapplied
since planets and animals are some of the rarest and most specialized
items in the universe. Darwin didn't invent evolution by the way, it
existed long before he was born.
> It is also Marxist
> because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
> lingo.
I might tend to agree with you on this one in some matters, for
example, Fidel Castro recently dedicated a monument to the "Brother in
Arms Revolutionary" John Lennon. Ironically, Fidel Castro also banned
The Beatles music from ever entering Cuba during the 60's claiming that
it was imperialist propaganda. So, obviously this was a case of him
being a hipocrite. But see, the thing that he was wrong about isn't his
recent move, it was his previous censorship. The fact of the matter is
that now he has the correct perspective on John Lennon. Lennon was a
revolutionary. He isn't doing any "casting" in a revolutionary light,
he is merely belatedly discovering the truth. It's obvious to anyone
who is un-biased that copernicus's ideas caused a paradigm shift away
from the aristocracy and the oligarchy at the time.
> It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
never heard this from freud. are you interpreting the importance of the
unconscious as degrading the importance of the conscious and
furthermore claiming that the unconscious is revolutionary and the
conscious isn't??? This seems really strange and paranoid to me. Is it
like, you don't trust your own unconscious mind in the same way that
you don't trust liberal commie revolutionaries??? LMAO man it must
suck to be you!
> It is also Kuhnian because the Copernican Revolution is supposed
> to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
Well realizing the sun was at the center rather than the earth
definitely has a kind of allegorical symbolism to it, doesn't it? I
mean, that's kind of a big deal, isn't it????
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Roger Schlafly
> > in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> > planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
> um, ever heard of coincidence? Maybe that's not what he would have
> meant had he ever spoken about revolution, but obviously looking back
> on his ideas it is clear to anyone with half a brain that his
> discoveries caused a "sudden or momentous change in a situation" (from
> the definition of the word "revolution").
But Copernicus did cause a sudden change. Heliocentrism wasn't
accepted until 100 years or so after his death.
> > It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> > explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
> never heard this from freud. are you interpreting the importance of the
> unconscious as degrading the importance of the conscious and
> furthermore claiming that the unconscious is revolutionary and the
> conscious isn't??? This seems really strange and paranoid to me. Is it
> like, you don't trust your own unconscious mind in the same way that
> you don't trust liberal commie revolutionaries??? LMAO man it must
> suck to be you!
This is Freud's own analogy. It doesn't make much sense to me,
but Freudians seem to think it is important.
Ken Cox
> The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging debate over the
> use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR). I am
> summarizing here in case others tuned out. It started with a
> discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
To summarize even further:
Roger claims "Copernican revolution" has a meaning involving the
revolution of the Earth about the Sun. He has not shown any use
of the phrase in this sense.
Everyone else claims "Copernican revolution" refers to the great
intellectual and philosophical change brought about by the work
of Copernicus, Newton, Galileo, and Kepler. We have found many
uses of the phrase in this sense, including uses by what are
normally Roger's favorite sources of scientific argument, viz.,
dictionaries, encyclopedias, and Web pages.
Roger's response to this is to say that it's all some sort of
Marxist conspiracy.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> > > > > The "Copernican revolution" referred to the revolution
> > > > > of the Earth about the Sun, not an intellectual revolution.
Just reminding everyone, since Roger has (for whatever reason)
seen fit to start a new thread and thereby break the link with
the old one, what started all this.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
and...@my-deja.com
squeamy <trivia...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3A5E370C...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging debate over the
> > use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR). I am
> > summarizing here in case others tuned out. It started with a
> > discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
> >
> > I contend that the original and true meaning CR is derived from
> > the title of Copernicus's famous book: De Revolutionibus Orbium
> > Coelestium (On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres), published
> > in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> > planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
>
> um, ever heard of coincidence? Maybe that's not what he would have
> meant had he ever spoken about revolution, but obviously looking back
> on his ideas it is clear to anyone with half a brain that his
> discoveries caused a "sudden or momentous change in a situation" (from
> the definition of the word "revolution").
"Revolution" has a scientific meaning, the one used by Copernicus, and
a wholly different meaning in politics, as often used by Castro. No
one speaks of an "Einsteinian Revolution" in science.
It's error to apply the political meaning to a scientific discovery
like Copernicus'.
[snip]
> > I am suggesting that the term CR has been co-opted by Darwinist-
> > atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian ideologues in the last 50 years
> > for leftist and pseudo-scientific propaganda purposes.
>
> well, you only suggest this because you are a paranoid fundamentalist
> conspiracy theorist.
Political terms are used for political purposes -- as demonstrated by
your own claim itself! Is President-elect Bush a "fundy" to his
opponents?
> > It is atheist because atheists like to believe that Copernicus
> > not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
> > but also disproved the Bible.
>
> the bible cannot be proven or disproven because it is not to be taken
> literally. It is a good story book with wisdom and perspective on the
> times in which it was written. It is the fault of those who take it
> literally to try to apply it to domains in which it doesn't belong.
None of the Bible is to be taken literally??? Billions disagree with
that.
> > It is Darwinist because Darwinists
> > believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
> > by analogy to Earth being just another planet.
>
> kind of a stretch, as one has nothing to do with the other. We are
just
> another animal, and the Earth is just another planet, but I hardly see
> where one has to do with the other. From a paranoid-schizo ego-maniacs
> perspective I can see that perhaps both disturb their idea that they
> are somehow super-duper special and different, but most people with
> sense realize that this planet and all of the life forms on it are
> extremely rare and special even if it is "just a planet" and we
> are "just animals". The use of the word "just" their is misapplied
> since planets and animals are some of the rarest and most specialized
> items in the universe. Darwin didn't invent evolution by the way, it
> existed long before he was born.
And the meaning continues to be changed and diluted. (See t.o thread
on modern textbook definitions of "evolution").
> > It is also Marxist
> > because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
> > lingo.
>
> I might tend to agree with you on this one in some matters, for
> example, Fidel Castro recently dedicated a monument to the "Brother in
> Arms Revolutionary" John Lennon. Ironically, Fidel Castro also banned
> The Beatles music from ever entering Cuba during the 60's claiming
that
> it was imperialist propaganda. So, obviously this was a case of him
> being a hipocrite. But see, the thing that he was wrong about isn't
his
> recent move, it was his previous censorship. The fact of the matter
is
> that now he has the correct perspective on John Lennon. Lennon was a
> revolutionary. He isn't doing any "casting" in a revolutionary light,
> he is merely belatedly discovering the truth. It's obvious to anyone
> who is un-biased that copernicus's ideas caused a paradigm shift away
> from the aristocracy and the oligarchy at the time.
Copernicus was apparently a devout Polish Catholic who was even elected
canon of a cathedral; his uncle was a bishop. Copernicus was a master
of theology, and was even invited by the Lateran Council, a general
meeting of Church authorities, to express his opinion on calendar
reform.
[snip]
> > It is also Kuhnian because the Copernican Revolution is supposed
> > to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
>
> Well realizing the sun was at the center rather than the earth
> definitely has a kind of allegorical symbolism to it, doesn't it? I
> mean, that's kind of a big deal, isn't it????
A big deal to Aristotle and Ptolemy, perhaps. Maybe to a few less-
informed clerics in the Middle Ages as well, although it's unclear how
many.
Hasn't slowed down the growth of religious belief. Does the Bible even
bother with the issue anywhere?
Andy
David C. Fritzinger
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> squeamy wrote:
> > > in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> > > planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
> > um, ever heard of coincidence? Maybe that's not what he
would have
> > meant had he ever spoken about revolution, but obviously
looking back
> > on his ideas it is clear to anyone with half a brain that his
> > discoveries caused a "sudden or momentous change in a
situation" (from
> > the definition of the word "revolution").
>
> But Copernicus did cause a sudden change. Heliocentrism
wasn't
> accepted until 100 years or so after his death.
Roger, you can't have it both ways. I saw you claiming that the
Greeks had first said the solar system was heliocentric. Which is
it?
In addition, it doesn't matter that the theory wasn't accepted for 100
years. We have evidence that Copernicus first proposed it.
Therefore, the scientific revolution that this caused has his name
on it.
Dave Fritzinger
[snip]
squeamy
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> squeamy wrote:
> > > in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> > > planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
> > um, ever heard of coincidence? Maybe that's not what he would have
> > meant had he ever spoken about revolution, but obviously looking
back
> > on his ideas it is clear to anyone with half a brain that his
> > discoveries caused a "sudden or momentous change in a situation"
(from
> > the definition of the word "revolution").
>
> But Copernicus did cause a sudden change. Heliocentrism wasn't
> accepted until 100 years or so after his death.
His thoughts were still revolutionary, even though no one realized it
until long after his death
>
> > > It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> > > explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
> > never heard this from freud. are you interpreting the importance of
the
> > unconscious as degrading the importance of the conscious and
> > furthermore claiming that the unconscious is revolutionary and the
> > conscious isn't??? This seems really strange and paranoid to me.
Is it
> > like, you don't trust your own unconscious mind in the same way that
> > you don't trust liberal commie revolutionaries??? LMAO man it must
> > suck to be you!
>
> This is Freud's own analogy. It doesn't make much sense to me,
> but Freudians seem to think it is important.
I think you need to back this assertion up. Not that I am a fan of
freud....
Roger Schlafly
> > But Copernicus did cause a sudden change. Heliocentrism
> > wasn't accepted until 100 years or so after his death.
> Roger, you can't have it both ways. I saw you claiming that the
> Greeks had first said the solar system was heliocentric. Which is
> it?
Yes, both. It was debated among the Greeks. And it was a lot more
than 100 years after the death of Aristarchus that heliocentrism
was accepted.
> In addition, it doesn't matter that the theory wasn't accepted for 100
> years. We have evidence that Copernicus first proposed it.
No. Aristarchus and the Pythagoreans had heliocentric models. Eg, see:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Aristarchus.html
http://www.treasure-troves.com/bios/Aristarchus.html
Copernicus's model was better, but not radically.
> Therefore, the scientific revolution that this caused has his name
> on it.
Your logic has some gaps.
Roger Schlafly
> > This is Freud's own analogy. It doesn't make much sense to me,
> > but Freudians seem to think it is important.
> I think you need to back this assertion up. Not that I am a fan of
> freud....
There is a saying of Freud that Gould quotes so much that the t.o
regulars here just call it the aphorism. Not the best statement
of it, but here it is in a list of Gould Freud quotes:
http://x76.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=710303195
Roger Schlafly
> "Revolution" has a scientific meaning, the one used by Copernicus, and
> a wholly different meaning in politics, as often used by Castro. No
> one speaks of an "Einsteinian Revolution" in science.
>
> It's error to apply the political meaning to a scientific discovery
> like Copernicus'.
That's right. Scientists do not non-scientist political ideologues
redefine their terms. Scientists continue to use the word revolution
in its original sense, and pay no attention to the Kuhnians.
Martin Crisp
the 'To' and 'Newsgroups' headers for details. ]]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:59:09 +1100, David C. Fritzinger wrote
(in message <93lksp$6pf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
[Apologies if this shows twice, forgot to cc to the bot last time, but
at least it'll mean my server is finally fixed...]
No, we have evidence that Aristarchus first proposed it, and had
supporting evidence. We have evidence that Copernicus first had valid &
sufficient evidence for it.
i.e. Aristarchus 'knew' it, Copernicus 'proved' it.
Refs in Britannica and Russell's History of Western Philosophy (and
other places, no doubt).
So, somewhat surprisingly, Roger can, if he's careful with phrasing,
have it both ways.
Have Fun
Martin
--
Kinky:
What I do that you wouldn't
Perverted:
What you do that I wouldn't
David C. Fritzinger
Let me correct myself and say that Copernicus was, perhaps, the
best known person who presented the theory. For that reason, the
"revolution" was the Copernican Revolution.
Personally, I find that you look pretty silly in this argument. But, if
that's your bag...
Dave Fritzinger
David Ewan Kahana
> In article <3A5E4BB9...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > squeamy wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > > > It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> > > > explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
> > > never heard this from freud. are you interpreting the importance of
> the
> > > unconscious as degrading the importance of the conscious and
> > > furthermore claiming that the unconscious is revolutionary and the
> > > conscious isn't??? This seems really strange and paranoid to me.
> Is it
> > > like, you don't trust your own unconscious mind in the same way that
> > > you don't trust liberal commie revolutionaries??? LMAO man it must
> > > suck to be you!
> >
> > This is Freud's own analogy. It doesn't make much sense to me,
> > but Freudians seem to think it is important.
>
> I think you need to back this assertion up. Not that I am a fan of
> freud....
I think this assertion might be a bit confused. I can easily believe that Freud
made some analogy to the Copernican revolution in describing his
various ideas about mental life, but I don't think he would ever have
disputed that human consciousness is central to humanity.
As I remember, summarizing roughly, Freud believed in the existence of
unconscious mental processes. He proposed that these processes constituted,
all in all, a `larger' fraction of the activity of the human mind than
the conscious processes.
This idea of the unconscious mind was not invented by Freud. There were
earlier psychologists who believed mental activity had an unconscious
component. Freud added a kind of mental determinism (suggesting that
random events do not occur in mental life), and he went into extensive detail
about the organization of the unconscious mind. Because of mental determinism,
Freud argued that one could reconstruct unconscious thoughts, using techniques
like free association, the analysis of dreams, hypnosis and so on.
Now, to the extent that psychologists before Freud actually held the position
that unconscious mental processes didn't exist at all, Freud's ideas about
the unconscious mind could be regarded as a kind of `psychological
revolution,' akin to the Copernican revolution in astronomy.
The analogy would be that the conscious mind was displaced from the central
position it had formerly occupied in psychological studies. The focus was
placed instead, on unconscious thoughts and motivations. Freud might have
said something along these lines. But I would like to see a quotation or two
to back it up and clarify what he said.
I don't think that Freud's view ever was, or that the Freudian view is, that
human consciousness itself is not central to humanity. That would be just too
bizarre.
The idea was that there is more to the mind than just conscious, verbalized
thoughts. In Freudian thinking, people have both conscious and unconscious
motives and thoughts. The unconscious motives may be in fact dominant factors
in determining human behaviour. People may act in certain ways without
knowing fully why they do so.
cheers,
- dave k.
and...@my-deja.com
This is basically just another misuse of language. Copernicus used
revolution in the scientific sense, but pseudo-scientists later tried
to attach a different meaning to it.
Same has occurred for "neo-Darwinism" (now a program, not a
scientifically defined term), "fit" (Darwin's and historial meaning now
changed to mean reproductive capability), "natural selection"
(Darwin's "survival of the fittest" meaning no longer
used), "abiogenesis" (dictionary definition now rejected by
evolutionists), even "evolution" itself (now defined in unlimited terms
such as the history of life), etc.
When has a mathematician, chemist or physicist ever tried to change the
meaning of a term in such a manner?
Andy
Hank Kuvilia
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:3A5E4ECD...@research.bell-labs.com...
I've lurked on TO for quite some time and this has to be
one of the strangest threads I've ever followed. What
possible importance could the establishment of such a
bizarre misreading have?
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> "Revolution" has a scientific meaning, the one used by Copernicus, and
> a wholly different meaning in politics, as often used by Castro. No
> one speaks of an "Einsteinian Revolution" in science.
It is common, and quite uncontrovertial, to speak of an
Einsteinian Revolution in science.
Cohen, whom Roger is delighted to cite as a critic of the phrase
"Copernican Revolution", speaks of an Einsteinian Revolution.
Infeld speaks of general relativity as a "second Einsteinian
revolution". Silvio Bergia refers to "Einstein Revolution".
Hundreds of others use "revolution" or "revolutionary" as
descriptive of Einstein's work.
Cheers -- Chris
and...@my-deja.com
It is important to correct the "bizarre misreading" of what Copernicus
said. People wouldn't defend the misreading if they didn't agree about
its importance.
Pseudo-scientists who dislike the Catholic Church or theology in
general like to imply that Copernicus was on their side. Their
implication is completely false. Copernicus was devoted to theology
and his theory was entirely consistent with it. He did not view it as
an intellectual revolution, and it wasn't.
Chris Ho-Stuart
Insane. Completely, utterly, totally out of touch with reality.
Damnation, but Einstein HIMSELF uses the word "revolution"
in this sense. He uses the German word "Umwalzung" most often,
and also "revolutionar" of Maxwell's work.
This meaning of the word "revolution" is standard, and has been
standard for well over two hundred years. It is used, with this
meaning, by all kinds of people all across any political or
philosophical boundaries you care to name.
This is not a matter of bowing to Marxism, to atheism, or to
Kuhnianism; it is purely and simply a matter of elementary
English comprehension.
And in your case, a total lack of integrity which makes you
incapable of admitting any error on this matter of perfectly
straightforward usage of English.
Cheers -- Chris
WickedDyno
<host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
I haven't heard of Einsteinian revolutions, but I have heard of
Relativistic and Quantum Revolutions in physis.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
Kuvilia" <hnokuiv...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
A number of possibilities come to mind:
1) Roger, in order to justify his hatred of Gould, considers all ideas
that Gould supports to be utter rubbish. This includes any and all
ideas of Freud that he can find any evidence that Gould references,
Kuhn's theories of scientific revolutions, etc. In particular, Gould
shares Kuhn's view that the transition from a bible and Aristotle-based
geocentric cosmology to an evidence and science-based heliocentric
cosmology was a scientific revolution. In order to dispute that, Roger
must redefine the word "revolution".
2) Roger is an intellectual masochist and (possibly subconsciously)
enjoys the debunking of his ideas.
3) Roger is a troll and says purposely absurd things in order to get
reactions from others.
4) A combination of two or all of the above.
Chris Ho-Stuart
> The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging debate over the
> use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR). I am
> summarizing here in case others tuned out. It started with a
> discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
>
> I contend that the original and true meaning CR is derived from
> the title of Copernicus's famous book: De Revolutionibus Orbium
> Coelestium (On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres), published
> in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
It is, of course, correct that the title of Copernicus' book
uses "revolution" of physical motions.
However, it is incorrect to say that Copernicus is speaking of
the revolutions of planets.
Copernicus was speaking of revolutions of "celestial orbs", by
which he means enormous spheres on which planets are located.
This is a subtle distinction, but important. Copernicus' model
of motions was wrong in nearly every respect, and in many ways
was a step backwards.
One point which has not been raised so far in these threads is
that the primary intent of Copernicus' book was most likely to
show that the celestial revolutions were uniform and circular.
Copernicus put considerable emphasis on restoring regularity
to celestial motions. In particular, he insisted on regular
motions, without any variation in speed. Copernicus criticized
Ptolemy not for making the Earth immobile, but for abandoning
uniform circular motions. Ptolemy proposed that the speed of a
planet was not uniform with respect to the center of its circular
motion. In this, of course, Ptolemy was rather closer to the
truth than Copernicus.
If anyone was ever to speak of "Copernican revolution" as a
particular kind of motion in space (though we have seen
plainly that this phrase is not ever used in that sense)
then one should focus on what Copernicus emphasized as the
most important and crucial aspect of celestial motions:
that they were circular and uniform.
Copernicus resolved the problems of observed motions by using
epicycles, so that the motions were the result of several
composed uniform circular motions, but in this he was also
incorrect. Also, his methods did not give a great improvement
in accuracy over the methods already in use, and in many
instances were less accurate.
However, that Copernicus was wrong about many matters is not to
deny his significance. After all, Kepler and Galileo also made
fairly fundamental errors. Galileo considered that comets
were located between the Earth and the Moon, that the Moon
could have no influence on tides, and that the acceleration
due to attraction of the Earth did not vary with distance from
the Earth. Kepler believed that the forces acting on planets
were magnetic, and that a body will come to rest unless acted
on by forces to maintain its motion.
It would be foolish to belittle any scientist for failing to
get everything right.
Copernicus has rightly earned a place in the development of modern
astronomy because he proposed putting the Earth in motion in
the same way as other planets. No matter the motions themselves
were incorrect, or that the actual physical revolutions proposed
by Copernicus were not used in the subsequent development of
astronomy. Kepler, and Galileo, and others who came after, felt
quite free to criticize Copernicus on such matters. However, they
still explicitly associated Copernicus' name with the notion that
that the Earth moved. This is his enduring contribution, and not
the actual physical motions which he proposed.
> At the other extreme is the view that CR has no scientific meaning,
> and only refers to an intellectual revolution in which the
> dominant paradigm of text-based authority was replaced by
> scientific truths.
By CR, Roger means "Copernican Revolution". The meaning of this
term is indeed not scientific, but historical. That is not an
extreme view; it is a matter of simple comprehension of how
the phrase is used by every single writer who uses it. They all,
without any exception, use "Copernican Revolution" to refer to the
historical event of a scientific revolution, and not as a technical
or scientific term denoting a certain kind of physical motion in
space. The only extremist on that matter of usage is Roger.
> A book on this subject is:
> Revolution in Science by I. Bernard Cohen (1985)
>
> Postings with summaries from the book:
> http://x58.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714408969
> http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714415475
>
> This book attacks use of the term CR to describe an intellectual
> revolution because the bigger advances in that subject came from
> Kepler, Newton, and others. Use of the term "revolution" to
> describe an intellectual revolution only came much later.
>
> I am suggesting that the term CR has been co-opted by Darwinist-
> atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian ideologues in the last 50 years
> for leftist and pseudo-scientific propaganda purposes.
On this point, Roger is insane. Not merely wrong, or ignorant or
stupid, but displaying a cement-headed pathology of belief which
beggars description. Insane.
The book by Cohen is actually about the concept of a scientific
revolution through history. He shows that the term "revolution"
in this sense comes into common use from about the eighteenth
century; with some precedent even earlier.
With respect to the Copernican Revolution, Cohen names Kuhn as one
of a series of writers who speak of a Copernican Revolution, but
not the first, or the last, or the most influential. If anyone
is singled out by Cohen, it is Kant; and here Cohen argues that
it is commentators on Kant, and not Kant himself, who originated
the term. The term "Copernican Revolution", according to Cohen,
came into common use in the eighteenth century, making it one of
the earliest instances of a particular revolution being named.
Cohen places great emphasis on contemporary witness for identifying
a revolution. It is for this reason that he objects to a Copernican
revolution. It was sixty years after the death of Copernicus before
any of his ideas or methods began to be widely adopted. A notable
exception was a book of astronomical tables published in 1551, but
otherwise Copernicus' immediate influence was fairly limited.
Only after work of Galileo and Kepler did any of Copernicus' ideas
start to become widely used; and even then the only aspect used was
motion of the Earth and other planets about the Sun. Both Galileo
and Kepler identified themselves as "Copernicans", but in fact they
only used his system in this very gross sense. Copernicus' actual
model for motions was not used, nor was it at all influential for
any later developments.
A Newtonian revolution, in the other hand, is uncontrovertial;
Newton's impact was immediate, and profound, and explicitly
recognized and named as revolutionary, and immediately became
the foundation for subsequent work in astronomy, in all its
details.
Cohen, however, is rather less hysterical in putting his viewpoint
than Roger. Cohen emphasizes that definitions and tests for
revolutions in science are subjective.
Historians will continue to refer to a Copernican Revolution for
the foreseeable future. Cohen's concerns that this can lead to
errors of understanding of the historical events are legitimate.
There was no sudden adoption of new ideas at the time of
Copernicus. The physics and descriptions of motion which did
arise in the seventeenth century owe almost nothing to
Copernicus' descriptions of the physical motions involved.
On the other hand, the notion that the Earth moves is still
highly significant. In science, the matter of forces and ellipses
are highly significant; but for philosophy, and for metaphysical
or religious worldviews, the matter of Earth's location and motion
is rather more important. The church was quite explicit on this.
Copernicus' book was not simply banned; the church was actually
very specific on what ideas and words within the book were
unacceptable. What was unacceptable was that the Earth moved.
The church required certain very minor modifications to make the
book acceptable; and essentially they consisted of expressing
the matter of Earth's motion as a device for calculation, and
not as a description of an actual state of affairs.
It was motion of the Earth which the church, and astronomers,
considered to be significant. This is quite reasonably associated
with Copernicus; even if it was much later developments that made the
notion scientifically reasonable, and in accordance with observation.
The church was incorrect, of course, to insist that the Earth was
immobile. It was, however, entirely correct in recognizing this
as a major challenge to their worldview.
By far the most historians who speak of a Copernican revolution
do not make the mistake of saying that the revolution occurred
in Copernicus' time; they invariably allow that the revolution
was not complete until after Kepler and Galileo, or after Newton.
I have previously expressed, in these threads, the view that my
personal choice for the most appropriate name for this revolution
is Newton; though use of any single name is potentially misleading.
Where I differ from Roger is not in insisting that the revolution
be named after Copernicus. It is in my awesome ability to actually
read and understand the writings of people who use the phrase
"Copernican Revolution".
> It is atheist because atheists like to believe that Copernicus
> not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
> but also disproved the Bible. It is Darwinist because Darwinists
> believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
> by analogy to Earth being just another planet. It is also Marxist
> because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
> lingo. It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
> It is also Kuhnian because the Copernican Revolution is supposed
> to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
Boggle.
On point 1: the people who were most vocal in insisting that
Copernicus was in opposition to the bible were Christians and
churchmen. Historians recognize that the *church* was in error
on the matter of the Earth's motion, and that Copernicus was
(eventually) a public relations disaster for the church. But on
whether Copernicus disproves the bible, they are almost universally
silent. Copernicus disproved one particular way of understanding
the bible; and Copernicus emphasized this point himself.
Speaking for myself, I am quite positive that those who take the
bible as presenting a scientific model for cosmology, or biology,
or geology, or geography, etc, are making the same mistake as the
church in the seventeenth century. They are deliberately setting up
a conflict between the bible and science which can only bring
the bible into undeserved disrepute.
On point 2: the Earth *is* another planet. This does not deny
that the Earth is special. Humans *are* another animal. This does
not deny than humans are special. Failing to recognize that the
Earth is a planet, and than humans are animals, is failing to
identify what it is that makes the Earth, and humans, special.
The other points are merely silly. That Marxists, or Kuhnians, or
Freudians, may use the word "revolution" is a bizarre justification
for labeling the "Copernican Revolution" a Marxist, or Kuhnian,
or Freudian concept.
Cheers -- Chris
Jonathan Stone
>In article <93lo60$9ml$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> "David C. Fritzinger" <dfri...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>This is basically just another misuse of language. Copernicus used
>revolution in the scientific sense, but pseudo-scientists later tried
>to attach a different meaning to it.
Oh, for pity's sake. Copernicus wrote in ecclesiastical latin. His
actual title, _De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium_, translates as
"On the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbs".
That *added* a new meaning to the word "revolution".
>When has a mathematician, chemist or physicist ever tried to change the
>meaning of a term in such a manner?
Normal. Energy. Force. Work. Each of those words has a technical scientific
meaning. The technical terms differ from the everyday meanings.
The fact in this case is that the everyday meaning of "revolution"
postdates Copernicus' use. So what? Should non-scientists stop using
words like "normal" and "energy" and "revolution"? Or, if they don't,
does that make the scientific usage somehow pseudo-scientific?
That seems to be your argument.
Jonathan Stone
Martin Crisp <Spam....@tesseract.com.au> wrote:
>
>No, we have evidence that Aristarchus first proposed it, and had
>supporting evidence. We have evidence that Copernicus first had valid &
>sufficient evidence for it.
What a load of tosh. copernicus proposed a heliocentric model, but the
data did not fit circular heliocentric orbits. Copernicus thus posited
epicycles; the "evidence" for which was no better than for Ptolemaic models.
(the prutenic tables based on Copernicus' model were, iirc, quite successful)
>i.e. Aristarchus 'knew' it, Copernicus 'proved' it.
Copernicus *coudln't* prove it, as he didn't have the evidence, and
(as we know now) his model was flawed. Tycho Brahe did have the
observational data, but didn't know what to do with it.
(Brahe proposed a modified geocentric model, with the sun orbiting the
earth, and other planets orbiting the sun.)
Johannes Kepler demonstrated that Brahe's observations were explained
by elliptical planetary orbits, with the sun at one focus, and with
the planets sweeping out equal areas in equal periods of time.
>Refs in Britannica and Russell's History of Western Philosophy (and
>other places, no doubt).
I don't see how they can; they both support the viewpoint i described. above
>So, somewhat surprisingly, Roger can, if he's careful with phrasing,
>have it both ways.
Oh, he tries, he tries.
Jonathan Stone
>In article <93lgaa$32h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> squeamy <trivia...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[...snip quoted text]
>
>"Revolution" has a scientific meaning, the one used by Copernicus, and
>a wholly different meaning in politics, as often used by Castro. No
>one speaks of an "Einsteinian Revolution" in science.
Only because the quantum-mechanical revolution which overthrew
classical physics overshadows relativity.
>It's error to apply the political meaning to a scientific discovery
>like Copernicus'.
It isn't an error, because the term "revolution" to denote an upheaval
is not _soley_ political; it applies to the history of ideas too.
>Political terms are used for political purposes -- as demonstrated by
>your own claim itself! Is President-elect Bush a "fundy" to his
>opponents?
>A big deal to Aristotle and Ptolemy, perhaps. Maybe to a few less-
>informed clerics in the Middle Ages as well, although it's unclear how
>many.
Popes, Cardinals, Martin Luther, and Calvin.
[...]
Jonathan Stone
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>> squeamy wrote:
>> > > in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
>> > > planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
>> > um, ever heard of coincidence? Maybe that's not what he
>would have
>> > meant had he ever spoken about revolution, but obviously
>looking back
>> > on his ideas it is clear to anyone with half a brain that his
>> > discoveries caused a "sudden or momentous change in a
>situation" (from
>> > the definition of the word "revolution").
>>
>> But Copernicus did cause a sudden change. Heliocentrism
>wasn't
>> accepted until 100 years or so after his death.
>
>Roger, you can't have it both ways. I saw you claiming that the
>Greeks had first said the solar system was heliocentric. Which is
>it?
Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric model; but the work is lost. All
we have is a copy, apparently early, of Aristarcus' estimate of the
relative size of the moon and the sun. (I say "apparently early" as
the heliocentric work is cited in, e.g, Archimedes' _The Sand
Reckoner_, along with data which implies more accurate estimates for
the sun:moon size than does the surviving copy of Aristarchus' work.)
If memory serves, Archimedes criticized Aristarchus' assumption--
which was forced by the lack of any observed parallax -- that the
"sphere" of the fixed stars is at infinite radius. But i could be wrong.
Interestingly enough, the idea that night and day are due to rotation
of the Earth predates Aristarchus.
Jonathan Stone
[...]
>On point 1: the people who were most vocal in insisting that
>Copernicus was in opposition to the bible were Christians and
>churchmen. Historians recognize that the *church* was in error
>on the matter of the Earth's motion, and that Copernicus was
>(eventually) a public relations disaster for the church.
But quite minor, when compared to Galileo.
>But on
>whether Copernicus disproves the bible, they are almost universally
>silent. Copernicus disproved one particular way of understanding
>the bible; and Copernicus emphasized this point himself.
>
>Speaking for myself, I am quite positive that those who take the
>bible as presenting a scientific model for cosmology, or biology,
>or geology, or geography, etc, are making the same mistake as the
>church in the seventeenth century. They are deliberately setting up
>a conflict between the bible and science which can only bring
>the bible into undeserved disrepute.
Why on earth do you say the "disrepute" is undeserved? The very crux
of the disagreeement between the churches (both Catholic and
Protestant) and scientists was whether the Bible was pre-eminent
over observation and theory. The churches lost; The Bible is not
an accurate, infallible descrtiption of the natural world,
as it was held to be for some one and a half millenia.
We are no longer tortured or burnt at the stake for suggesting
hypotheses which contradict the Bible.
In what possible way is that undeserved?
[...]
Chris Ho-Stuart
> In article <3a5e...@news.qut.edu.au>,
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>>On point 1: the people who were most vocal in insisting that
>>Copernicus was in opposition to the bible were Christians and
>>churchmen. Historians recognize that the *church* was in error
>>on the matter of the Earth's motion, and that Copernicus was
>>(eventually) a public relations disaster for the church.
>
> But quite minor, when compared to Galileo.
Sure.
>>But on
>>whether Copernicus disproves the bible, they are almost universally
>>silent. Copernicus disproved one particular way of understanding
>>the bible; and Copernicus emphasized this point himself.
>>
>>Speaking for myself, I am quite positive that those who take the
>>bible as presenting a scientific model for cosmology, or biology,
>>or geology, or geography, etc, are making the same mistake as the
>>church in the seventeenth century. They are deliberately setting up
>>a conflict between the bible and science which can only bring
>>the bible into undeserved disrepute.
>
> Why on earth do you say the "disrepute" is undeserved? The very crux
> of the disagreeement between the churches (both Catholic and
> Protestant) and scientists was whether the Bible was pre-eminent
> over observation and theory. The churches lost; The Bible is not
> an accurate, infallible descrtiption of the natural world,
> as it was held to be for some one and a half millenia.
> We are no longer tortured or burnt at the stake for suggesting
> hypotheses which contradict the Bible.
>
> In what possible way is that undeserved?
Because the bible is not presenting, nor attempting to present,
a description a literal description of cosmology, or biology, or
geology, or geography. The bible passages most often raised in
these contexts are invariably concerned mainly with other issues.
For example, Genesis 3 speaks of a tree of knowledge, a talking
snake, of God bringing animals to Adam for him to consider as a
partner, and so on. This is perfectly obviously not literal.
Genesis 1 is equally not literal; though the symbolism is less
blatant. It is, I suggest, in the form of a kind of liturgy, and
is primarily concerned with issues of monotheism vs polythesism;
and specifically Balylonian and Sumerian polytheism.
It is true that throughout history Jews and Christians have
taken the bible as being divine, and have taken that to mean it
is without any defect. However, the actual use of the passages
in question have always been to illuminate theological matters
rather than historical ones. It is only when alternative histories
became available that there has been any great concern to insist
on historical applications.
Many folks have observed that there is a conflict between Genesis 1
and Genesis 2. Some have attempted to deny this conflict, and insist
that they describe the same events. This marks, in my view, the
absolute low point in biblical criticism and scholarship; it is
the kind of stuff we expect from creationists and others with no
brains. Of course there is a conflict. And this in turn suggests
strongly that those who put first compiled these accounts into a
single text did not that kind of conflict as a problem.
Cheers -- Chris
Jonathan Stone
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>Jonathan Stone <jona...@dsg.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> In article <3a5e...@news.qut.edu.au>,
>>
>
>Because the bible is not presenting, nor attempting to present,
>a description a literal description of cosmology, or biology, or
>geology, or geography. The bible passages most often raised in
>these contexts are invariably concerned mainly with other issues.
Not really relevant, even if it were true.
Back then, the Bible passages *were* understood as accurate
descriptions of cosmology, astronomy biology, geology, and
geography. Even in modern exegesis, I haven't seen anyone
challenge the idea that the Hebrew model of the earth was like a circular
(or square?) plate with a hemispherical firmament above.
Sure, *today* those passages are understood (mostly) non-literally;
but that's only *after* intepretations which treat them as an
accurate (not necessarily literal, but accurate) description have
been thoroughly discredited.
Roger Schlafly
> Because the bible is not presenting, nor attempting to present,
> a description a literal description of cosmology, or biology, or
> geology, or geography. The bible passages most often raised in
> these contexts are invariably concerned mainly with other issues.
And that is the view of most Christians. Now and throughout
history.
Roger Schlafly
> Why on earth do you say the "disrepute" is undeserved? The very crux
> of the disagreeement between the churches (both Catholic and
> Protestant) and scientists was whether the Bible was pre-eminent
That is not an accurate description of Catholic theology. The
Vatican has recognized scientific and theological advances.
Much of the Protestant Reformation was a complaint that the
Vatican does *not* take the Bible as pre-eminent, and sometimes
incorporates doctrines that are not in the Bible.
As for Protestants, most of them are not Biblical literalists
either.
Jonathan Stone
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Stone wrote:
>> Why on earth do you say the "disrepute" is undeserved? The very crux
>> of the disagreeement between the churches (both Catholic and
>> Protestant) and scientists was whether the Bible was pre-eminent
>> over observation and theory. The churches lost; ...
>
>That is not an accurate description of Catholic theology.
Roger, where have you *been* for the last 300 years? The Catholic
church had explicit rulings about exactly which parts of Copernicus'
book were heretical (that the earth moved: that had to be clarified
as being merely "for computational convenience", not an acutal
desription of reality).
Remember Galileo's trial?
> TheVatican has recognized scientific and theological advances.
It did not, *at the time of copernicus and Galileo*.
The Catholic church only recanted about Galileo last century.
>Much of the Protestant Reformation was a complaint that the
>Vatican does *not* take the Bible as pre-eminent, and sometimes
>incorporates doctrines that are not in the Bible.
Roger, you are incredible. Luther explicitly condemned the ideas of
Copernicus, citing the passage in Joshua which says that the Lord
comanded the sun and moon to stand still over Gibeon; *not* the Earth.
Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy has a translation.
>As for Protestants, most of them are not Biblical literalists
>either.
Martin luther still disagreed with Copernicus, citing the Bible as
justification. I seem to recall Calvin did as well, but i dont recall
a reference off-hand.
Thats why I disagreed with Chris Ho-Stuart's ridiculous statement:
the fall of the Bible from unquestionable truth to allegory was entirely
deserved. That was, of course, part and parcel of the intellectual
revolution, of reason overturning faith.
Chris Ho-Stuart
Agreed, on both points; with the proviso that Catholic
theology in particular is not static, and that the
present position is not necessarily a good guide to
Catholic views in the seventeenth century.
Cheers -- Chris
Chris Ho-Stuart
> In article <3a5e...@news.qut.edu.au>,
> Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>>Jonathan Stone <jona...@dsg.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>> In article <3a5e...@news.qut.edu.au>,
>>>
>>
>>Because the bible is not presenting, nor attempting to present,
>>a description a literal description of cosmology, or biology, or
>>geology, or geography. The bible passages most often raised in
>>these contexts are invariably concerned mainly with other issues.
>
>
> Back then, the Bible passages *were* understood as accurate
> descriptions of cosmology, astronomy biology, geology, and
> geography. Even in modern exegesis, I haven't seen anyone
> challenge the idea that the Hebrew model of the earth was like
> a circular (or square?) plate with a hemispherical firmament above.
This was the context within which the bible was written.
The bible was not written as a description of such a
cosmology, but as a description of God's interaction of
humanity. It was written within a culture that used
certain cosmologies. The bible does not introduce them,
nor was the intent of the bible to defend or explain them,
nor was is seeking to teach those cosmologies except for
the sake of how they were used to illuminate God.
> Sure, *today* those passages are understood (mostly) non-literally;
> but that's only *after* intepretations which treat them as an
> accurate (not necessarily literal, but accurate) description have
> been thoroughly discredited.
With respect, I think you are completely off the wall on this.
The stories have always been taken mostly non-literally. That
believers regarded them as historically accurate does not
change the fact that their application and importance, right
back to earliest times, has always been focused mainly on
non-historical matters.
To take an easy example; the story of Noah's flood does not
begin with the bible. It is a much older story deriving from
originally from Sumeria and then Babylonia. The parallels of
the flood of Noah with the Epic of Gilgamesh are now well known;
and they would certainly have been very well known at the time
the bible was written. (This part of Genesis is considered to
have reached its present form about the time of the Babylonian
exile.)
However, the Epic of Gilgamesh was only rediscovered by modern
scholars quite recently.
Why is it in the bible? To see the reasons, I think you need to
look at the differences between Noah's flood and the Epic of
Gilgamesh; and those differences are essentially concerned with
ethical monothesism as opposed to the squabbling pantheon of
deities in the older story. That is what reveals the concerns of
the biblical writers and compilers. And this has always been the
primary take home message -- even for those who accepted the
stories as history. The history, whether it be considered a
mythical history or a literal history or whether that distinction
was not even considered, has always been the vehicle, and not the
message.
Genesis 1 is similarly seen to have a close relationship with
the Babylonian Enuma Elish; and again this shows, in my view,
that the bible is not particularly concerned to tackle simple
historical matters, but uses them to deal with issues of
the relationship between God and humanity, and with God's
preeminent status within the universe.
The reason why people get hung up on historical truth is if
they somehow link the importance or worth of the text to its
correspondence with history. How shallow! That is simply
repeating the the error of the fundamentalists, but from
the outside.
What would be think of a scholar who made a critique of the Epic
of Gilgamesh based on proofs that there was never a world wide
flood? Would this not be pointless, and totally missing the
importance of this ancient story? Who cares if people took it
as literal history! What an incredibly narrow view of the worth
of a story!
By insisting and focussing on the historical truth of the bible,
believers have brought it into undeserved disrepute, because its
importance, and significance, and major application has never at
any time been the history itself; but to use events and stories,
both historical and unhistorical, to teach about God.
My personal favourite example is the story of Jonah. Everyone
remembers the miracle of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, or
a big fish. But that miracle is trivial compared with the big
miracle to follow. The real miracle in the story of Jonah is
that one Hebrew prophet showed up in Nineveh, huge cosmopolitan
center of the Babylonian world, and single handedly persuades the
king and entire populace to don sack-cloth and ashes, and to beg
God's forgiveness. Now there is a miracle for you!
Alone in the prophetic books of the old testament, Jonah stands
as a single connected narrative. That is, a story. And the point
of the story? Obvious! It was written to counter the kinds of
views expressed in Psalm 137, a lament of those in exile in
Babylon that concludes by speaking of the happiness of those who
dash the heads of Babylonian babies against a rock. In Jonah, God
is seen to value the Babylonians, and to rejoice when they turn to
him. That in fact, in history, there is no instance of all of
Nineveh suddenly donning sackcloth to beg God's forgiveness at
the behest of an Israelite prophet is beside the point, and would
certainly have been well known to the writer of the story. He was
telling a story, for the usual reasons people tell stories.
Now of course, there will be Christians (and Jews) all over the
net bristling at my comments than Jonah is obviously not in the
least historical, and was not intended to be historical. Likewise,
they will object to my plain implication that the bible contains
diverse views that are in tension with each other. Are they right?
Or have they totally missed the point?
The situation with Genesis is much the same. That people take it
as historical is not what defines the importance of the bible,
and showing that it is not historical is not addressing the
importance of the bible, and in so far as such criticism is
considered as bring the bible into disrepute, that disrepute is
undeserved.
Cheers -- Chris
Chris Ho-Stuart
> Chris Ho-Stuart wrote:
>> Because the bible is not presenting, nor attempting to present,
>> a description a literal description of cosmology, or biology, or
>> geology, or geography. The bible passages most often raised in
>> these contexts are invariably concerned mainly with other issues.
>
> And that is the view of most Christians. Now and throughout
> history.
Yep. Nice to find a point on which we can agree.
Cheers -- Chris
Roger Schlafly
> >When has a mathematician, chemist or physicist ever tried to change the
> >meaning of a term in such a manner?
> Normal. Energy. Force. Work. Each of those words has a technical scientific
> meaning. The technical terms differ from the everyday meanings.
Those are words with technical meanings in particular contexts.
Sometimes they take an everyday meaning and make it more precise,
but they don't try to change meanings.
Copernicus had technical meanings for rotation and revolution
that were similar to everyday meanings. Revolution meant
revolving around the Sun (or Earth).
> The fact in this case is that the everyday meaning of "revolution"
> postdates Copernicus' use. So what? Should non-scientists stop using
> words like "normal" and "energy" and "revolution"? Or, if they don't,
> does that make the scientific usage somehow pseudo-scientific?
I say that if you are going to use 'revolution' in connection
with Copernicus, then use it the way he intended it.
Roger Schlafly
> 1) Roger, in order to justify his hatred of Gould, considers all ideas
> that Gould supports to be utter rubbish. This includes any and all
> ideas of Freud that he can find any evidence that Gould references,
> Kuhn's theories of scientific revolutions, etc. In particular, Gould
> shares Kuhn's view that the transition from a bible and Aristotle-based
> geocentric cosmology to an evidence and science-based heliocentric
> cosmology was a scientific revolution. In order to dispute that, Roger
> must redefine the word "revolution".
It is amazing how constructive it is to just assume that Gould
is wrong. Most scholars are right the big majority of the time.
With Gould, it is easier to make sense of him if I just assume
he is wrong about whatever he is saying.
But beyond that, I think this whole CR issue encapsulates a lot
of what I believe are mistaken ideas about the philosophy of
science that many t.o regulars have.
Chris Ho-Stuart
[snip]
> I say that if you are going to use 'revolution' in connection
> with Copernicus, then use it the way he intended it.
Actually, what you have been saying that people who do use
the word "revolution" in connection with Copernicus ARE using it
in the same way that he used it in the title of this book.
This is plainly incorrect.
The phrase "Copernican Revolution" is always using the word
"revolution" with a different meaning than the meaning used
in the title "De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium".
Both meanings are perfectly sensible and long standing English
usage.
Cheers -- Chris
Roger Schlafly
> I haven't heard of Einsteinian revolutions, but I have heard of
> Relativistic and Quantum Revolutions in physis.
Sure, because that relates to the views that actually changed.
Einstein once authored a book titled: "The Evolution of Physics".
But do you ever hear anyone talk about the Einsteinian Evolution?
Of course not.
Roger Schlafly
> However, it is incorrect to say that Copernicus is speaking of
> the revolutions of planets.
> Copernicus was speaking of revolutions of "celestial orbs", by
> which he means enormous spheres on which planets are located.
> This is a subtle distinction, but important. Copernicus' model
> of motions was wrong in nearly every respect, and in many ways
> was a step backwards.
Curious point, but I don't see where NC thought the orbs were
anything physical. After all, the Earth is on one of them, and
it doesn't seem to influence Earth's rotation.
> One point which has not been raised so far in these threads is
> that the primary intent of Copernicus' book was most likely to
> show that the celestial revolutions were uniform and circular.
So was that the metaphysical CR? He was arguing for uniform
circles? If I read somewhere that "X was a CR in modern art",
should I think that X introduced uniform circularity to modern
art?
> On the other hand, the notion that the Earth moves is still
> highly significant. In science, the matter of forces and ellipses
> are highly significant; but for philosophy, and for metaphysical
> or religious worldviews, the matter of Earth's location and motion
> is rather more important. The church was quite explicit on this.
> Copernicus' book was not simply banned; the church was actually
> very specific on what ideas and words within the book were
> unacceptable. What was unacceptable was that the Earth moved.
> The church required certain very minor modifications to make the
> book acceptable; and essentially they consisted of expressing
> the matter of Earth's motion as a device for calculation, and
> not as a description of an actual state of affairs.
In view of GR, the movement of the Earth is not significant. It
just depends on your frame of reference, and any frame can be used
for computation. So the Church was completely correct that the
matter of the Earth's motion was a device for calculation, and not
more than that.
Copernicus's arguments for the motion of the Earth were really not
very compelling. His best argument was that the calculations are
simpler. But that just plays to the Church position that CR was
just a device for calculation.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "Revolution" has a scientific meaning, the one used by Copernicus,
and
> > a wholly different meaning in politics, as often used by Castro. No
> > one speaks of an "Einsteinian Revolution" in science.
> >
> > like Copernicus'.
Ex Schlaflys semper aliquid novi!
> That's right. Scientists do not non-scientist political ideologues
> redefine their terms. Scientists continue to use the word revolution
> in its original sense, and pay no attention to the Kuhnians.
>
Maybe you would like to explain the following:
German uses "Umlauf/Umdrehung" *) for what you call the "scientific"
meaning of "revolution" - and "Revolution" for what you call
the "political" meaning.
Yet everyone speaks about the "Kopernikanische Revolution".
HRG.
*) "Umlauf der Planeten"/"2000 Umdrehungen pro Minute"
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Roger's silly argument doesn't survive translation. Other languages
use different words for the two different meanings and make it crystal
clear what the "Copernican Revolution" is about.
Regards,
HRG.
> Cheers -- Chris
hrgr...@my-deja.com
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <e9u76.12715$68.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Hank Kuvilia" <hnokuiv...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A5E4ECD...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > > > > > > > The "Copernican revolution" referred to the revolution
> > > > > > > > of the Earth about the Sun, not an intellectual
> revolution.
> > >
> > > Just reminding everyone, since Roger has (for whatever reason)
> > > seen fit to start a new thread and thereby break the link with
> > > the old one, what started all this.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I've lurked on TO for quite some time and this has to be
> > one of the strangest threads I've ever followed. What
> > possible importance could the establishment of such a
> > bizarre misreading have?
>
> It is important to correct the "bizarre misreading" of what Copernicus
> said. People wouldn't defend the misreading if they didn't agree
about
> its importance.
If you think that the current discussion is about what _Copernicus_
_said_, I feel sorry for you.
HRG.
Roger Schlafly
> Roger's silly argument doesn't survive translation. Other languages
> use different words for the two different meanings and make it crystal
> clear what the "Copernican Revolution" is about.
Pray tell. The Latin sounds similar to English. Do you have an
example of CR translated into another language?
Roger Schlafly
> >Much of the Protestant Reformation was a complaint that the
> >Vatican does *not* take the Bible as pre-eminent, and sometimes
> >incorporates doctrines that are not in the Bible.
> Roger, you are incredible. Luther explicitly condemned the ideas of
> Copernicus, citing the passage in Joshua which says that the Lord
> comanded the sun and moon to stand still over Gibeon; *not* the Earth.
Yes; Luther believed the Bible was pre-eminent. The Vatican
has a different view.
> >As for Protestants, most of them are not Biblical literalists
> >either.
> Martin luther still disagreed with Copernicus, citing the Bible as
> justification. I seem to recall Calvin did as well, but i dont recall
> a reference off-hand.
So what? Nearly all the scientists disagreed with Copernicus
in his day. Those that knew about him, anyway.
> Thats why I disagreed with Chris Ho-Stuart's ridiculous statement:
> the fall of the Bible from unquestionable truth to allegory was entirely
> deserved. That was, of course, part and parcel of the intellectual
> revolution, of reason overturning faith.
And I object to saying CR was reason overturning faith.
Jonathan Stone
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>Jonathan Stone wrote:
>> >Much of the Protestant Reformation was a complaint that the
>> >Vatican does *not* take the Bible as pre-eminent, and sometimes
>> >incorporates doctrines that are not in the Bible.
>> Roger, you are incredible. Luther explicitly condemned the ideas of
>> Copernicus, citing the passage in Joshua which says that the Lord
>> comanded the sun and moon to stand still over Gibeon; *not* the Earth.
>
>Yes; Luther believed the Bible was pre-eminent. The Vatican
>has a different view.
Roger, do you not understand ordinary english verb tenses?
The Vactican threatened Galileo with torture.
>So what? Nearly all the scientists disagreed with Copernicus
>in his day. Those that knew about him, anyway.
Roger, do you actively tell lies, or do you just make this up as you
go along? The fundamental ideas in Copernicus' _De Revolutionibus_
were circulated up to thirty years before his death. A summary of the
book was printed as the _narratio prima_ in 1540. Clavius commented
on the Copernican system. The leading astronomers of his day were
well aware of his ideas.
>
>And I object to saying CR was reason overturning faith.
>
Why object? That is *exactly* what the intellecutal revolution which
bears Copernicus' name (even if was, ultimately, due more to Gaileo,
Kepler, and Newton) was all about.
Roger Schlafly
> >Yes; Luther believed the Bible was pre-eminent. The Vatican
> >has a different view.
Nonsense. The Vatican treated Galileo very well. But my point
was that the Vatican and Lutheran attitudes towards the Bible
were different.
> >So what? Nearly all the scientists disagreed with Copernicus
> >in his day. Those that knew about him, anyway.
> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
> The fundamental ideas in Copernicus' _De Revolutionibus_
> were circulated up to thirty years before his death. A summary of the
> book was printed as the _narratio prima_ in 1540. Clavius commented
> on the Copernican system. The leading astronomers of his day were
> well aware of his ideas.
They heard about it. But were they persuaded? No.
> >And I object to saying CR was reason overturning faith.
> Why object? That is *exactly* what the intellecutal revolution which
> bears Copernicus' name (even if was, ultimately, due more to Gaileo,
> Kepler, and Newton) was all about.
So why didn't Copernicus and the others lose the faith?
Jonathan Stone
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>Jonathan Stone <jona...@dsg.stanford.edu> wrote:
>With respect, I think you are completely off the wall on this.
Nope. With equal respect and sincerity, you seem unable to think
clearly about the issue. You miss the point totally.
>The stories have always been taken mostly non-literally.
hilarious. I really *dont* understand how you can compartmentalize
what you clearly do know of the history of science.
The stories *have* been taken as both teaching about God and as
actual historic descriptions. This was clearly the case with
Copernicus and with Galileo. The objection to both was that
they said the Earth moved, that it was not the centre of the Universe.
In other words, the criticism of Copernicus and Galileo, from both
Catholic and Protestant quarters, swas *direct* literalism.
I *know* you know this, and I genuinely do not understand
why you are trying to fudge the issue.
>To take an easy example; the story of Noah's flood does not
>begin with the bible. It is a much older story deriving from
>originally from Sumeria and then Babylonia. The parallels of
>the flood of Noah with the Epic of Gilgamesh are now well known;
>and they would certainly have been very well known at the time
>the bible was written. (This part of Genesis is considered to
>have reached its present form about the time of the Babylonian
>exile.)
>
>However, the Epic of Gilgamesh was only rediscovered by modern
>scholars quite recently. [...]
So what?
That is *completley* irrelevant to whether or not the Noachic deluge
was interpreted as both a moral tale *and* as a historical event,
for example as an explanation for marine fossils on mountain-tops.
I am sure you know that it was.
Why do you try and dodge the question? You may not *like* the
fact that interpretatins which _today_ smack of literalism were,
only a few hundred years ago, utterly orthodox; but that doesn't
stop it from being true.
[...]
>The reason why people get hung up on historical truth is if
>they somehow link the importance or worth of the text to its
>correspondence with history. How shallow! That is simply
>repeating the the error of the fundamentalists, but from
>the outside.
That depends on whether one thinks the text has particular worth,
more so than the myths of other cultures.
How shallow, how parochial of you!
>What would be think of a scholar who made a critique of the Epic
>of Gilgamesh based on proofs that there was never a world wide
>flood?
That depends entirely on whether the critique is made today or 500
years ago, and whether it is intended as biblical exegis, or as a
novel contribution to geology.
Ane important point -- a point to which you seem deliberately,
willfully deaf -- is that the Christian Church enforced, by torture
and murder, the viewpoint that the Bible *was* an accurate record of
natural history. Serious challenges to that were met as Bruno and
Galileo was met. That was why Copernicus delayed publication until he
was on his deathbed.
>Would this not be pointless, and totally missing the
>importance of this ancient story?
You completley miss *my* point, which is that under the Christian
Church before the Copernican revolution, one wasn't *allowed* to say
that the Earth was not the immovable centre of God's Creation; or to
examine the geological record and declare that no Noachic flood ever
occurred. The Christians would have burnt or tortured anyone
who said so.
>Who cares if people took it
>as literal history! What an incredibly narrow view of the worth
>of a story!
But Christians *did* take the Bible as an accurate record of the
natural world, and tortured or burnt anyone who questioned that.
Chris, please think for a while on what the consequences would have
been, 500 years ago, for *anyone* who looked at the geologic record
and declared at the Noachic flood never took place -- just as the
founders of modern geology did in the 1700s. (by which time Christianity,
despite a nominal victory over Galileo, had well and truly lost).
Until you do that, you're completley mis-interpreting my point.
That is why I said that that the relative disrepute of the Bible
(or whatever your exact prhase was) was well and truly deserved.
Or do you think that burning people alive for disagreeing
with a book is a Good Thing?
Jonathan Stone
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>They heard about it. But were they persuaded? No.
*sigh*. Roger, you are ineducable.
>> >And I object to saying CR was reason overturning faith.
>> Why object? That is *exactly* what the intellecutal revolution which
>> bears Copernicus' name (even if was, ultimately, due more to Gaileo,
>> Kepler, and Newton) was all about.
>
>So why didn't Copernicus and the others lose the faith?
Galileo *did*: suspected heresy, reember?
If he truly did mutter _eppur si mouve_, then by the definition
of the Catholic Church, he *had* lost his faith. Saying that the Earth
moved was heresy, punishable by torture and death.
The rewriting of history that you and Chris Ho-Stuart seem to enjoy
notwithstanding.
catshark
Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging debate
Rogerspeak for a convention of fish-in-the-barrel aficionados taking
aim at Roger.
> over the use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR).
> I am summarizing here in case others tuned out.
"I am hoping that everyone will forget all the stupid things I said
before and I can start over with a fresh set of inanities"
> It started with a
> discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
>
> I contend that the original and true meaning CR is derived from
> the title of Copernicus's famous book: De Revolutionibus Orbium
> Coelestium (On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres), published
> in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
>
> At the other extreme is the view that CR has no scientific meaning,
"Also I am hoping that that by starting over I can recast all those
thoughful and intelligent responses I received into a strawman that I
can then make everybody defend."
> and only refers to an intellectual revolution in which the
> dominant paradigm of text-based authority was replaced by
> scientific truths.
>
[snip]
>
> I am suggesting that the term CR has been co-opted by Darwinist-
> atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian ideologues in the last 50 years
> for leftist and pseudo-scientific propaganda purposes.
>
Wow! A global conspiracy! Encompassing most scientists, everybody
Rogerspeak would call an "atheist" (given the way he throws that one
around, quite a long list), ditto "commie" (a billion Chinese give or
take a few, for starters), "Freudians" (Rogerspeak definition: anyone
who thinks that there are unconscious psychological influences that
effect the behavior of individual human beings) and Kuhnians (sorry,
Rogerspeak archeologists will have to get back to you on what the heck
that is supposed to mean!). Quite a list!
And what is truely amazing is how quickly this conspiracy has grown!
Just a few short days ago, a leading historian of science,
lexigographer, philosopher and all around man of letters had this to
say:
"For centuries the Copernican Revolution referred to the revolution of
the Earth about the Sun. Only a few idiots like Freud and Gould could
get that wrong."
- Schlafly <roger...@deja.com> - 01/01/2001
My, how quickly the situation has changed!
> It is atheist because atheists like to believe that Copernicus
> not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
> but also disproved the Bible. It is Darwinist because Darwinists
> believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
> by analogy to Earth being just another planet. It is also Marxist
> because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
> lingo. It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
> It is also Kuhnian because the Copernican Revolution is supposed
> to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
>
>
Keep sending the giggles, Roger!
--
J. Pieret
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worthwhile
chewing through the leather straps.
Henry Barwood
Roger Schlafly wrote:
Essentially nothing, but it generated at least 50 replies. I nominate
Roger Schlafly for the Peter Nyikos memorial trophy for most wasted
bandwidth on t.o.
Barwood
Stephen F. Schaffner
>My personal favourite example is the story of Jonah. Everyone
>remembers the miracle of Jonah being swallowed by a whale, or
>a big fish. But that miracle is trivial compared with the big
>miracle to follow. The real miracle in the story of Jonah is
>that one Hebrew prophet showed up in Nineveh, huge cosmopolitan
>center of the Babylonian world,
I think you mean Assyria, not Babylon. (Nineveh was the capital of
Assyria, and was destroyed by the Babylonians).
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
Ken Cox
> No, we have evidence that Aristarchus first proposed it, and had
> supporting evidence. We have evidence that Copernicus first had valid &
> sufficient evidence for it.
>
> i.e. Aristarchus 'knew' it, Copernicus 'proved' it.
It's sort of like saying Columbus discovered America. He
didn't -- there were people living there already. He wasn't
even the first person from the Old World to reach it, as the
Viking expeditions and colonization efforts are now pretty
firmly established archaeologically. What Columbus marks is
the start of *regular*, *sustained* contact between the Old
and New Worlds. So he gets the credit.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Hank Kuvilia
<and...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93ltdu$e22$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <e9u76.12715$68.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>,
> "Hank Kuvilia" <hnokuiv...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A5E4ECD...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > > > > > > > The "Copernican revolution" referred to the revolution
> > > > > > > > of the Earth about the Sun, not an intellectual
> revolution.
> > >
> > > Just reminding everyone, since Roger has (for whatever reason)
> > > seen fit to start a new thread and thereby break the link with
> > > the old one, what started all this.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I've lurked on TO for quite some time and this has to be
> > one of the strangest threads I've ever followed. What
> > possible importance could the establishment of such a
> > bizarre misreading have?
>
> It is important to correct the "bizarre misreading" of what Copernicus
> said. People wouldn't defend the misreading if they didn't agree about
> its importance.
>
foot, shoe, other
"Copernican Revolution" is neither a scientific term nor a quote
from Copernicus. It's just a label referring to a historical process
as do"Renaissance" and "Industrial Revolution".
It's entirely clear that our current
understanding of the nature, extent and age of the cosomos is
different from that current during Copernicus' time, as are
our economic capabilities (manufacturing, transportation, etc.).
Part of the historical process by which economic capabilities
were transformed is called the "Industrial Revolution"*. People
have used various names to describe similar changes in
scientific understanding, including "Copernican Revolution".
*A process with significant extent in time, contra the
claim elsewhere in this thread that revolutions must be of short extent.
BTW, I'm not making a strong existence claim for "historical processes"
in human affairs, but they're clearly useful explanatory devices.
> Pseudo-scientists who dislike the Catholic Church or theology in
> general like to imply that Copernicus was on their side. Their
> implication is completely false. Copernicus was devoted to theology
> and his theory was entirely consistent with it. He did not view it as
> an intellectual revolution, and it wasn't.
>
> Andy
What "psuedo-scientist" (or real historian) claims that Copernicus was
anything other than a loyal son of the church? The claim that his ideas
or those of his intellectual successors upset some philosophical applecarts
does not consititute a claim that such was Copernicus' intent.
Ken Cox
> "Hank Kuvilia" <hnokuiv...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > I've lurked on TO for quite some time and this has to be
> > one of the strangest threads I've ever followed. What
> > possible importance could the establishment of such a
> > bizarre misreading have?
> It is important to correct the "bizarre misreading" of what Copernicus
> said.
No one is talking about misreading what Copernicus said.
Copernicus certainly never used the phrase "Copernican
revolution" in his own work -- he just uses "revolutions"
(in Latin) to refer to the paths of the planets around
the Sun in the heliocentric theory he proposes.
The issue is thus, what do other people mean when they
use the phrase "Copernican revolution"? The answer is
that, as far back as anyone has been able to trace the
phrase, it has referred to the intellectual, philosophical,
scientific, and even religious changes caused by the
acceptance of his heliocentric theory (and by the work
of Galileo, Newton, Kepler, and others).
No one, not even Roger, has been able to exhibit even one
sentence in which a person uses the phrase in the sense
Roger says is the "true meaning". Not one. People just
don't say "The Earth moves about the sun in a Copernican
revolution."
It's a very odd sort of "true meaning" of a word that no
one ever uses or ever has used.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
rich hammett
What, that we don't let you define the way scientists and writers
use the English language?
rich
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
rich hammett
>> >Yes; Luther believed the Bible was pre-eminent. The Vatican
>> >has a different view.
>> The Vactican threatened Galileo with torture.
> Nonsense. The Vatican treated Galileo very well. But my point
> was that the Vatican and Lutheran attitudes towards the Bible
> were different.
House arrest and threats of torture are common love taps in the
Schlafly household.
rich
>
>> >So what? Nearly all the scientists disagreed with Copernicus
>> >in his day. Those that knew about him, anyway.
>> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
>> The fundamental ideas in Copernicus' _De Revolutionibus_
>> were circulated up to thirty years before his death. A summary of the
>> book was printed as the _narratio prima_ in 1540. Clavius commented
>> on the Copernican system. The leading astronomers of his day were
>> well aware of his ideas.
> They heard about it. But were they persuaded? No.
>> >And I object to saying CR was reason overturning faith.
>> Why object? That is *exactly* what the intellecutal revolution which
>> bears Copernicus' name (even if was, ultimately, due more to Gaileo,
>> Kepler, and Newton) was all about.
> So why didn't Copernicus and the others lose the faith?
rich hammett
>> However, it is incorrect to say that Copernicus is speaking of
>> the revolutions of planets.
>> Copernicus was speaking of revolutions of "celestial orbs", by
>> which he means enormous spheres on which planets are located.
>> This is a subtle distinction, but important. Copernicus' model
>> of motions was wrong in nearly every respect, and in many ways
>> was a step backwards.
> Curious point, but I don't see where NC thought the orbs were
> anything physical. After all, the Earth is on one of them, and
> it doesn't seem to influence Earth's rotation.
"You've read the work in question?" he asks hopelessly.
rich
Howard Hershey
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Jonathan Stone wrote:
> > >Yes; Luther believed the Bible was pre-eminent. The Vatican
> > >has a different view.
> > The Vactican threatened Galileo with torture.
>
> Nonsense. The Vatican treated Galileo very well.
Yes, if you consider house arrest and enforced silence as being
treated well. Given the alternative he faced, it clearly was the
preferable choice.
> But my point
> was that the Vatican and Lutheran attitudes towards the Bible
> were different.
Not completely so, or Galileo would never have stood trial.
>
> > >So what? Nearly all the scientists disagreed with Copernicus
> > >in his day. Those that knew about him, anyway.
> > [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
> > The fundamental ideas in Copernicus' _De Revolutionibus_
> > were circulated up to thirty years before his death. A summary of the
> > book was printed as the _narratio prima_ in 1540. Clavius commented
> > on the Copernican system. The leading astronomers of his day were
> > well aware of his ideas.
>
> They heard about it. But were they persuaded? No.
>
> > >And I object to saying CR was reason overturning faith.
> > Why object? That is *exactly* what the intellecutal revolution which
> > bears Copernicus' name (even if was, ultimately, due more to Gaileo,
> > Kepler, and Newton) was all about.
>
> So why didn't Copernicus and the others lose the faith?
Even in those days, it was only the Biblical literalists who insisted
that one's faith depended crucially upon the Bible (the Sacred Text)
being correct in all things natural as well as spiritual. They are
the ones who claimed that any disagreement with that priniciple was
heresy and represented evidence of a loss of faith (heresy was a more
serious crime in those days, but there are Christians today who would
like to bring back these 'good old days'). You may, of course, ask
why so many Biblical literalists continue asserting that rejection of
Biblical literalism is heresy even today, but I don't suppose you will.
Ken Cox
> Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > Darwinist-atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian
> The term "Copernican Revolution", according to Cohen,
> came into common use in the eighteenth century, making it one of
> the earliest instances of a particular revolution being named.
It might be noted that Darwin was born in 1809, Marx in 1818,
Freud in 1856, and Kuhn in 1922. It would therefore be a bit
difficult for those eighteenth-century uses of "Copernican
revolution" to refer to a scientific revolution to have been
by Darwinists, Marxists, Freudians, or Kuhnians.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> It is amazing how constructive it is to just assume that Gould
> is wrong.
If by "constructive" you mean "saves me work, at the cost of
my repeatedly making a fool of myself in front of hundreds
of people", then yes, your reflexive assumption that Gould is
wrong is indeed constructive.
Take this thread as an example of the effects. Tell me, Roger,
did you have any reason *other* than that Gould quotes a use of
the phrase "Copernican revolution" for your ridiculous claim
that it does not refer to a scientific revolution? Obviously
you couldn't have picked up that impression from reading the
phrase used in other ways, since it *isn't* -- or at least, you
have yet to find anyone who uses "Copernican revolution" with
what you have called the "true" meaning.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Roger's silly argument doesn't survive translation. Other languages
> use different words for the two different meanings and make it crystal
> clear what the "Copernican Revolution" is about.
All that will indicate to Roger is that the tentacles of the
Darwinist-atheist-Marxist-Freudian-liberal-Kuhnian-Clintonian
conspiracy reach into other countries.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
hrgr...@my-deja.com
I gave an example of a translation (which you dishonestly
snipped): "Umdrehung/Umlauf" vs. "Revolution". And *one* translation is
sufficient to show the absurdity of your argument.
HRG.
Howard Hershey
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "Revolution" has a scientific meaning, the one used by Copernicus, and
> > a wholly different meaning in politics, as often used by Castro. No
> > one speaks of an "Einsteinian Revolution" in science.
> >
> > It's error to apply the political meaning to a scientific discovery
> > like Copernicus'.
>
> That's right. Scientists do not non-scientist political ideologues
> redefine their terms. Scientists continue to use the word revolution
> in its original sense, and pay no attention to the Kuhnians.
So you mean to say that the only valid use and meaning of the word
'revolution' is in reference to orbital movements? What about the
American Revolution? The French Revolution? The Industrial
Revolution? Are you telling me that only pseudoscientific political
ideologues use the word 'revolution' in those senses?
Tracy P. Hamilton
"Roger Schlafly" <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:3A5EB06E...@my-dejanews.com...
> WickedDyno wrote:
> > I haven't heard of Einsteinian revolutions, but I have heard of
> > Relativistic and Quantum Revolutions in physis.
>
> Sure, because that relates to the views that actually changed.
>
> Einstein once authored a book titled: "The Evolution of Physics".
> But do you ever hear anyone talk about the Einsteinian Evolution?
> Of course not.
A little web searching finds a course at Harvard with this title.
But they are leftists who no doubt made up this course
in an attempt to discredit Roger. The vast left-wing conspiracy
strikes again.
Then again, science has changed a bit. We rarely give a
name So-and-so's law anymore either.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Roger Schlafly
> > Pray tell. The Latin sounds similar to English. Do you have an
> > example of CR translated into another language?
> I gave an example of a translation (which you dishonestly
> snipped): "Umdrehung/Umlauf" vs. "Revolution". And *one* translation is
> sufficient to show the absurdity of your argument.
I did NOT snip any translation example, or anything you wrote.
Do you have an argument, or not?
Tracy P. Hamilton
"Hank Kuvilia" <hkui...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e9u76.12715$68.6...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:3A5E4ECD...@research.bell-labs.com...
> > Roger Schlafly wrote:
> > > > > > > The "Copernican revolution" referred to the revolution
> > > > > > > of the Earth about the Sun, not an intellectual revolution.
> >
> > Just reminding everyone, since Roger has (for whatever reason)
> > seen fit to start a new thread and thereby break the link with
> > the old one, what started all this.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
> >
> >
>
> one of the strangest threads I've ever followed. What
> possible importance could the establishment of such a
> bizarre misreading have?
Attempted establishment, you mean? I think what it establishes is
how stupid ideologues are, with their zealous participation
and cooperation.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Roger Schlafly
> "Copernican Revolution" is neither a scientific term nor a quote
> from Copernicus. It's just a label referring to a historical process
> as do"Renaissance" and "Industrial Revolution".
Copernicus does use the word 'revolution' (in Latin) in his famous
book in a precise scientific sense. The word is in the title, and
throughout the book. It is the most important word in the whole
book.
The term CR is like Newtonian Force, Heisenberg Uncertainty, or
Feynman Diagram. These phrases can be use metaphorically, but
for revisionist historians to deny the true and scientific
meaning of these terms is an extreme abuse of language.
Roger Schlafly
> Chris, please think for a while on what the consequences would have
> been, 500 years ago, for *anyone* who looked at the geologic record
> and declared at the Noachic flood never took place -- just as the
> founders of modern geology did in the 1700s.
Go ahead an speculate. The Catholic Church has always embraced
scientific evidence. I know you think that it was a little unfair
to Galileo, but give me another example.
Howard Hershey
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging debate over the
> use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR). I am
> summarizing here in case others tuned out. It started with a
> discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
>
> I contend that the original and true meaning CR is derived from
> the title of Copernicus's famous book: De Revolutionibus Orbium
> Coelestium (On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres), published
> in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
I would argue that it is highly unlikely that Copernicus himself
originated the phrase "Copernican revolution". Indeed, I find it
highly unlikely that he originated the phrase "Copernican system"
(which more clearly refers to his heliocentrism) as well. Both
phrases seem to have originated after his death. The phrase
"Copernican system" undoubtedly came into useage in the exact same
sense that "Mendelian genetics" or "Mendelian system" came to be used:
as a way of honoring the originator of an idea that became important
in science. The phrase "Copernican system" became extended to include
many ideas about celestial mechanics which cannot be attributed
directly to Copernicus (but rather to Galileo, Keppler, Newton, and
others). In the same way the phrase "Mendelian genetics" is typically
extended to include linkage and other ideas which Mendel did not have
a clue about.
The change in ideas about celestial mechanics clearly had profound
effects not just in astronomy, but in religious ideas, the way of
knowing we call science, and philosophy. The phrase "Copernican
revolution" seems to have been first used in the early to mid 1800s to
refer to these effects of the "Copernican system" and thus the word
'revolution' in that phrase has absolutely no connection at all to the
meaning of the word 'revolution' in Copernicus' title but was *always*
referring to the intellectual revolution (the overthrowing of ideas)
involved in the "Copernican system" (in its extended meaning of the
'new science of celestial mechanics' and not in reference solely to
Copernicus' contributions to that science). Roger's ideas are clearly
nonsense. The word 'revolution' in the phrase "Copernican revolution"
never had anything to do with the meaning of the same word in the
title of his book. And the meaning of the word 'revolution' in the
phrase "Copernican revolution' always had the meaning that Roger
falsely attributes to Kuhn, when the meaning of that phrase clearly
was present and understood well before Kuhn.
>
> At the other extreme is the view that CR has no scientific meaning,
> and only refers to an intellectual revolution in which the
> dominant paradigm of text-based authority was replaced by
> scientific truths.
>
> A book on this subject is:
> Revolution in Science by I. Bernard Cohen (1985)
>
> Postings with summaries from the book:
> http://x58.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714408969
> http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714415475
>
> This book attacks use of the term CR to describe an intellectual
> revolution because the bigger advances in that subject came from
> Kepler, Newton, and others. Use of the term "revolution" to
> describe an intellectual revolution only came much later.
This is no surprise. I would be shocked if any of these participants
referred to the "Copernican revolution". They might have referred to
"Copernican system" or "heliocentrism".
>
> I am suggesting that the term CR has been co-opted by Darwinist-
> atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian ideologues in the last 50 years
> for leftist and pseudo-scientific propaganda purposes.
You obviously would be wrong, since it seems that the idea that the
new conception of celestial mechanics (collectively called the
"Copernican system") was recognized as a major advance and an
overthrow (i.e., a revolutionary change) of an older ideas of Biblical
literalist and Ptolomeic celestial mechanics well before Kuhn was born.
> It is atheist because atheists like to believe that Copernicus
> not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
> but also disproved the Bible.
Whether Copernicus himself thought he had "disproved the Bible" (wrt
the immobility of the earth, not necessarily anything else) or not is
an open question that cannot be answered by looking at the published
work. It would have taken an exceptionally foolish individual to have
directly stated that he had "disproved the Bible" in that age (and a
foolish publisher to let it get printed). The fact remains that the
celestial mechanics that is collectively called the "Copernican
system" does conflict with a literalistic reading of the Bible, as was
recognized not only by Copernicus but by churchmen of the time. If
findings from nature disagree with a literalistic interpretation of
the Bible, does that always amount to a disproof of the Bible? It is
not only atheists who do not think that the Bible can be read in a
literalistic way.
> It is Darwinist because Darwinists
> believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
> by analogy to Earth being just another planet.
What makes you think that Darwinsts think that man is *just* another
animal. Did the Church ever deny that man was an animal? Neither do
Darwinists deny that man is an animal. Darwinists presented the
evidence that man is *derived from* other animals by a process that
can be explained in scientific terms rather than humans being
instantaneously created by a process (special creation) that does not
involve any connections with other animals (extant or ancestral). But
that doesn't mean that man is *just* another animal (all animals --
and plants and bacteria -- are special in some ways). Nor does it
mean that the earth is *just* another planet (it is quite special,
being the only one that we know has life). But the earth is *not*
special in the sense that it is the immobile center of the universe.
> It is also Marxist
> because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
> lingo.
Which, of course, does not mean that history does not include
"revolutions", such as the American revolution and the French
revolution and the Industrial Revolution and that all these
revolutions were communist plots.
> It is also Freudian because Freudians believe that it helps
> explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
Rather he pointed out that human consciousness was not *all* there was
to humanity. That there were more primitive unconscious forces at work.
> It is also Kuhnian because the Copernican Revolution is supposed
> to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
The ideas of the "Copernican system" (in its extended meaning) was
thought to be a rather important feature of the history of science
well before Kuhn and was thought to involve a replacement or
overthrowing of a previous idea that structured our understanding of
celestial mechanics well before Kuhn -- vide Freud, for example.
Roger Schlafly
> > Nonsense. The Vatican treated Galileo very well.
> Yes, if you consider house arrest and enforced silence as being
> treated well.
What silence? Galileo continued to write and publish his theories.
See also:
Under the sentence of imprisonment Galileo remained till his death in
1642. It is, however, untrue to speak of him as in any proper sense a
"prisoner". As his Protestant biographer, von Gebler, tells us, "One
glance at the truest historical source for the famous trial, would
convince any one that Galileo spent altogether twenty-two days in the
buildings of the Holy Office (i.e. the Inquisition), and even then not
in a prison cell with barred windows, but in the handsome and commodious
apartment of an official of the Inquisition." For the rest, he was
allowed to use as his places of confinement the houses of friends,
always comfortable and usually luxurious. It is wholly untrue that he
was -- as is constantly stated -- either tortured or blinded by his
persecutors -- though in 1637, five years before his death, he became
totally blind -- or that he was refused burial in consecrated ground. On
the contrary, although the pope (Urban VIII) did not allow a monument to
be erected over his tomb, he sent his special blessing to the dying man,
who was interred not only in consecrated ground, but within the church
of Santa Croce at Florence.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06342b.htm
> > So why didn't Copernicus and the others lose the faith?
> Even in those days, it was only the Biblical literalists who insisted
> that one's faith depended crucially upon the Bible (the Sacred Text)
> being correct in all things natural as well as spiritual. They are
> the ones who claimed that any disagreement with that priniciple was
> heresy and represented evidence of a loss of faith (heresy was a more
> serious crime in those days, but there are Christians today who would
> like to bring back these 'good old days').
Those were the days of the Catholic Church, not the biblical
literalists.
Ken Cope
Roger has snipped the substance of more than one post and responded
to the remaining snippet, so I don't blame anybody for presuming
simple conteptuous dishonesty along with every other kind Roger has
ever displayed in these last few days...
For once he's responding to one post while being able to claim he's
never seen the one that showed up in my newsreader right next to
the one Roger is responding to, the one that contains the argument.
Of course, Roger is all bluster and no argument.
Roger Schlafly
> > Einstein once authored a book titled: "The Evolution of Physics".
> > But do you ever hear anyone talk about the Einsteinian Evolution?
> > Of course not.
>
> A little web searching finds a course at Harvard with this title.
> But they are leftists who no doubt made up this course
> in an attempt to discredit Roger.
I'd like to check. I searched for "Einsteinian Evolution" and got
nothing. Can you post the link?
Howard Hershey
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Jonathan Stone wrote:
> > >When has a mathematician, chemist or physicist ever tried to change the
> > >meaning of a term in such a manner?
> > Normal. Energy. Force. Work. Each of those words has a technical scientific
> > meaning. The technical terms differ from the everyday meanings.
>
> Those are words with technical meanings in particular contexts.
> Sometimes they take an everyday meaning and make it more precise,
> but they don't try to change meanings.
>
> Copernicus had technical meanings for rotation and revolution
> that were similar to everyday meanings. Revolution meant
> revolving around the Sun (or Earth).
>
> > The fact in this case is that the everyday meaning of "revolution"
> > postdates Copernicus' use. So what? Should non-scientists stop using
> > words like "normal" and "energy" and "revolution"? Or, if they don't,
> > does that make the scientific usage somehow pseudo-scientific?
>
> I say that if you are going to use 'revolution' in connection
> with Copernicus, then use it the way he intended it.
I say that the use of the word 'revolution' in the phrase "Copernican
revolution" never had any connection with the way that Copernicus used
the word 'revolution' in his title. The idea that Copernicus ever use
the phrase "Copernican revolution" at all is an unlikely fantasy.
Instead the meaning of the word 'revolution' in the "Copernican
revolution" always had the meaning it does now, which is now and was
then a perfectly valid meaning of the word 'revolution' which differs
from the meaning that appears in Copernicus' title. There never was a
change in the meaning by some Marxist-Leninist-Freudian-Kuhnian conspiracy.
Roger Schlafly
> >I did NOT snip any translation example, or anything you wrote.
> >Do you have an argument, or not?
> Roger has snipped the substance of more than one post and responded
> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
Of course I conserve bandwidth, as per standard usenet etiquette.
> For once he's responding to one post while being able to claim he's
> never seen the one that showed up in my newsreader right next to
> the one Roger is responding to, the one that contains the argument.
> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
> http://www.deja.com//threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=714837806.1
Even that message only says that German has 2 words for what we
call "revolution". But he has no citations to how these words
were actually used, so his message is worthless.
leonardo dasso
> The thread "Gould on Freud" contains a raging debate over the
> use an meaning of the term Copernican Revolution (CR). I am
> summarizing here in case others tuned out. It started with a
> discussion of Gould's repeated quoting of a Freudian aphorism.
>
> I contend that the original and true meaning CR is derived from
> the title of Copernicus's famous book: De Revolutionibus Orbium
> Coelestium (On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres), published
> in 1543. In that title, "revolution" refers to the Earth and other
> planets revolving around the Sun, not intellectuals revolting.
>
> and only refers to an intellectual revolution in which the
> dominant paradigm of text-based authority was replaced by
> scientific truths.
>
> A book on this subject is:
> Revolution in Science by I. Bernard Cohen (1985)
>
> Postings with summaries from the book:
> http://x58.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714408969
> http://x66.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=714415475
>
> This book attacks use of the term CR to describe an intellectual
> revolution because the bigger advances in that subject came from
> Kepler, Newton, and others. Use of the term "revolution" to
> describe an intellectual revolution only came much later.
>
> atheist-Marxist-Freudian-Kuhnian ideologues in the last 50 years
> for leftist and pseudo-scientific propaganda purposes.
>
> not only had a alternate way of doing astronomical calculations
> believe than one can understand that man is just another animal
> because Marxists like to recast history in terms of a "revolution"
> explain human consciousness not being at the center of humanity.
> to be the mother of all paradigm shifts.
>
In his Critique of Pure Reason, published in 1781, Kant calls his change in
metaphysical perspective to transcendental idealism, his "Copernican
revolution".
So we have to add Kant to the sinister
darwinist-atheist-marxist-freudian-kuhnian conspiracy too!!
You can't trust anybody these days. They are all a bunch of godless commies
in the Kremlin's payroll if you ask me.
No wonder Ayn Rand didnt like Kant one bit.
regards
leo
Mark VandeWettering
>Hank Kuvilia wrote:
>> "Copernican Revolution" is neither a scientific term nor a quote
>> from Copernicus. It's just a label referring to a historical process
>> as do"Renaissance" and "Industrial Revolution".
>
>Copernicus does use the word 'revolution' (in Latin) in his famous
>book in a precise scientific sense. The word is in the title, and
>throughout the book. It is the most important word in the whole
>book.
Yes. And yet nobody has ever in the broad history of science used the
term "Copernican revolution" to refer to the motion of the planets around
the sun. You are free to provide counterexamples, but you've had the chance
for days so far. The usage of the term is entirely consistent with terms
like "Industrial revolution", namely in identifying the beginning of an
intellectual revolution of ideas.
>The term CR is like Newtonian Force, Heisenberg Uncertainty, or
>Feynman Diagram. These phrases can be use metaphorically, but
>for revisionist historians to deny the true and scientific
>meaning of these terms is an extreme abuse of language.
Uh, none of those terms are the least bit metaphorical. I think it is you
who is proposing abuse of language.
For that matter, "Copernican revolution" isn't metaphorical either, even
in the way that you claim the vast Freudian-atheistic-Kuhnian cabal use the
term.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
David C. Fritzinger
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3A5E5F4B...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > "Revolution" has a scientific meaning, the one used by
Copernicus,
> and
> > > a wholly different meaning in politics, as often used by
Castro. No
> > > one speaks of an "Einsteinian Revolution" in science.
> > >
> > > It's error to apply the political meaning to a scientific
discovery
> > > like Copernicus'.
>
>
> > That's right. Scientists do not non-scientist political ideologues
> > redefine their terms. Scientists continue to use the word
revolution
> > in its original sense, and pay no attention to the Kuhnians.
> >
>
>
> German uses "Umlauf/Umdrehung" *) for what you call the
"scientific"
> meaning of "revolution" - and "Revolution" for what you call
> the "political" meaning.
>
> Yet everyone speaks about the "Kopernikanische Revolution".
Those damn Germans. Hell, Marx was a German national. Freud
was an Austrian, which is almost the same as a German. I haven't
fit Gould in yet, but I'm sure that if we work on it, we can fit him into
the conspiracy as well.
And, yes, I'm of German descent. All part of the plot...
Dave Fritzinger
>
> HRG.
>
> *) "Umlauf der Planeten"/"2000 Umdrehungen pro Minute"
Roger Schlafly
> > So why didn't Copernicus and the others lose the faith?
> Even in those days, it was only the Biblical literalists who insisted
> that one's faith depended crucially upon the Bible (the Sacred Text)
> being correct in all things natural as well as spiritual. They are
> the ones who claimed that any disagreement with that priniciple was
> heresy and represented evidence of a loss of faith (heresy was a more
> serious crime in those days, but there are Christians today who would
> like to bring back these 'good old days'). You may, of course, ask
> why so many Biblical literalists continue asserting that rejection of
> Biblical literalism is heresy even today, but I don't suppose you will.
Heresy was a crime in Vatican-controlled Italy, but the Church did
not advocate Biblical literalism, and scientific theorizing was not
a heresy.
Roger Schlafly
> So you mean to say that the only valid use and meaning of the word
> 'revolution' is in reference to orbital movements? What about the
> American Revolution? The French Revolution? The Industrial
> Revolution? Are you telling me that only pseudoscientific political
> ideologues use the word 'revolution' in those senses?
Those phrases are ok. (I was mildly suspicious that Marx popularized
the term Industrial Revolution, but it appears to be Toynbee and
others.) The phrases are nonscientific terms used for nonscientific
events.
My objection is when you start using scientific terms to describe
the history of science, but then horribly abuse the scientific
meaning of the term in order to promote some political agenda.
That is what has happened with CR.
Roger Schlafly
> In his Critique of Pure Reason, published in 1781, Kant calls his change in
> metaphysical perspective to transcendental idealism, his "Copernican
> revolution".
> So we have to add Kant to the sinister
> darwinist-atheist-marxist-freudian-kuhnian conspiracy too!!
> You can't trust anybody these days. They are all a bunch of godless commies
> in the Kremlin's payroll if you ask me.
> No wonder Ayn Rand didnt like Kant one bit.
I never liked Kant either, but IB Cohen has a whole chapter in
his book disputing this reference (according to accounts here
on t.o). Possibly Kant has been misinterpreted by others.
Matt Silberstein
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> In article <3A5EA729...@my-dejanews.com>,
> Roger Schlafly <roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >Much of the Protestant Reformation was a complaint that the
> >Vatican does *not* take the Bible as pre-eminent, and sometimes
> >incorporates doctrines that are not in the Bible.
>
> Roger, you are incredible.
Yes, but that comment of his is correct. A hallmark of the Reformation,
and of much of modern Protestantism, is the notion that the Bible, and
only the Bible, is the source of theological knowledge. No other books
or people or material should be referenced when discussing issues that
the Bible covers.
> Luther explicitly condemned the ideas of
> Copernicus, citing the passage in Joshua which says that the Lord
> comanded the sun and moon to stand still over Gibeon; *not* the Earth.
> Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy has a translation.
Which shows that they were even more incorrect than the Catholic Church.
[snip]
> Thats why I disagreed with Chris Ho-Stuart's ridiculous statement:
> the fall of the Bible from unquestionable truth to allegory was
entirely
> deserved. That was, of course, part and parcel of the intellectual
> revolution, of reason overturning faith.
It is quite arguable that this was not a fall at all, that it was a
relatively late error to see the Bible as having literal truth. It is
certainly not a concept you find in the Talmud.
--
Matt Silberstein
Unhappy the country that needs heroes. B. Brecht
Tracy P. Hamilton
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~scia41/
I suggest a metasearch engine like dogpile.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Tracy P. Hamilton
Yes, but how long have the Free Masons been around? That
is the TRUE shadowy source of all these -ists and -ians.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Howard Hershey
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> Howard Hershey wrote:
> > So you mean to say that the only valid use and meaning of the word
> > 'revolution' is in reference to orbital movements? What about the
> > American Revolution? The French Revolution? The Industrial
> > Revolution? Are you telling me that only pseudoscientific political
> > ideologues use the word 'revolution' in those senses?
>
> Those phrases are ok. (I was mildly suspicious that Marx popularized
> the term Industrial Revolution, but it appears to be Toynbee and
> others.) The phrases are nonscientific terms used for nonscientific
> events.
So it wouldn't have been O.K. if the term Industrial Revolution had
been coined by Marx but is O.K. because it was coined by Toynbee? The
meaning of revolution in each of these cases involve the idea of the
overthrow of a previous order or system. That is *one* quite standard
meaning of "revolution" in English. And that is exactly the meaning
that 'revolution' has *always* had in the term "Copernican
revolution", as witnessed by the fact, as another poster mentioned,
that in German (where there are three terms for revolution, one
conforming to the meaning of orbital movement and another referring to
the overthrow of a previous system) the word used in the phrase CR is
"revolution" and not "umlauf". Kant and later commentators surely
knew the difference between these meanings. Are you claiming that
they purposely used the wrong word? The phrase CR *never* had the
meaning of "revolution" that Copernicus uses in his title. Thus there
was no change of meaning. CR is a phrase that was coined after
Copernicus was dead (just as Mendelian genetics was coined after
Mendel was dead) and had no connection to the words that he used in
his title. You are the only person claiming that the term CR has any
relationship to the word that Copernicus used in his title. But you
have not been able to back that up.
>
> My objection is when you start using scientific terms to describe
> the history of science, but then horribly abuse the scientific
> meaning of the term in order to promote some political agenda.
> That is what has happened with CR.
And that is sheer bullsquat. CR never was a phrase with a scientific
meaning and it still does not have a scientific meaning. The meaning
of revolution in that phrase never had the meaning of "orbital
movements" (which is the meaning the word revolution has in
Copernicus' title). Although I know you hate the term, the meaning of
CR has always been (since at least the time of Kant) "the paradigm
shift that occurred as a consequence of the "Copernican system" (the
celestial mechanics that was *initiated* by Copernicus)". That is, it
has always meant the overthrow of the previous system of celestial
mechanics by the celestial mechanics that is *called* the "Copernican
system" (which, like "Mendelian genetics" includes a lot of stuff that
Copernicus never dreamed of).
Boikat
>
[snip]
>
> Of course I conserve bandwidth, as per standard usenet etiquette.
"Standard usenet ettiquette" also means marking
the "snip". Observe...
[snip]
Boikat
Roger Schlafly
> > > > Einstein once authored a book titled: "The Evolution of Physics".
> > > > But do you ever hear anyone talk about the Einsteinian Evolution?
> > > > Of course not.
> > > A little web searching finds a course at Harvard with this title.
> > > But they are leftists who no doubt made up this course
> > > in an attempt to discredit Roger.
> > I'd like to check. I searched for "Einsteinian Evolution" and got
> > nothing. Can you post the link?
> http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~scia41/
> I suggest a metasearch engine like dogpile.
Ahh, I see it now. "The Einsteinian Revolution". I asked for the
Einsteinian Evolution.
Unfortunately access to the site is restricted, so we don't know
what goofy stuff they are teaching.
rich hammett
Roger, the dialectic predicted that you would act in this way. Marx
has already described the deterministic social universe, and you have
no control.
rich
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
rich hammett
> Martin Crisp wrote:
>> No, we have evidence that Aristarchus first proposed it, and had
>> supporting evidence. We have evidence that Copernicus first had valid &
>> sufficient evidence for it.
>>
>> i.e. Aristarchus 'knew' it, Copernicus 'proved' it.
> It's sort of like saying Columbus discovered America. He
> didn't -- there were people living there already.
One of my proudest memories is asking my second grade teacher how
Columbus could have discovered America if there were people already
here.
rich
> He wasn't
> even the first person from the Old World to reach it, as the
> Viking expeditions and colonization efforts are now pretty
> firmly established archaeologically. What Columbus marks is
> the start of *regular*, *sustained* contact between the Old
> and New Worlds. So he gets the credit.
Ken Cox
> I never liked Kant either, but IB Cohen has a whole chapter in
> his book disputing this reference (according to accounts here
> on t.o).
According to those same accounts, the use of "revolution" to
mean a significant social, scientific, political, or religious
change goes back over 200 years, and "Copernican revolution"
in that sense nearly as far; which is in direct conflict with
your claim that these are recent Darwinist-atheist-Freudian
changes to the language. Why do you accept the one claim, but
not the other?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
leonardo dasso
I wonder if you're being serious. The Catholic church for centuries
persecuted all those who challenged the authority of the bible in the
philosophical and scientific domains.
A little unfair to Galileo? Quaint way to put it.
The following are just a couple of examples of the Catholic Church's
persecution of dissent picked up randomly from the book "Histoire de la
libre-pensee" by Albert Bayet:
1. In 1346 the philosopher Nicholas D'Autrecourt's was condemned by Pope
Clement VI, ordered to resign his professorship, recant his error, and
publicly burn his writings for emphasizing the evidence of sense data as a
source of intellectual certitude.
2. In 1590 Tomasso Campanella was imprisoned for heresy due to the
publication of his book "Philosophy Demonstrated by the Senses", which
stressed an empirical approach to philosophy.
3. In 1600 the philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician Giordano Bruno was
burned at the stake by the Inquisition for proposing an infinite universe,
the multiplicity of worlds and for rejecting geocentric astronomy.
4. In 1864 Pious IX condemns naturalism in his encyclical Quanta Cura.
Have fun
leo
Robert Parson
leonardo dasso <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>You can't trust anybody these days. They are all a bunch of godless commies
>in the Kremlin's payroll if you ask me.
>No wonder Ayn Rand didnt like Kant one bit.
Ayn Rand called Kant "the first hippie."
This may be the silliest thing that Rand ever wrote.
However, I am not sure of that.
------
Robert
WickedDyno
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> WickedDyno wrote:
> > 1) Roger, in order to justify his hatred of Gould, considers all ideas
> > that Gould supports to be utter rubbish. This includes any and all
> > ideas of Freud that he can find any evidence that Gould references,
> > Kuhn's theories of scientific revolutions, etc. In particular, Gould
> > shares Kuhn's view that the transition from a bible and Aristotle-based
> > geocentric cosmology to an evidence and science-based heliocentric
> > cosmology was a scientific revolution. In order to dispute that, Roger
> > must redefine the word "revolution".
>
> It is amazing how constructive it is to just assume that Gould
> is wrong. Most scholars are right the big majority of the time.
> With Gould, it is easier to make sense of him if I just assume
> he is wrong about whatever he is saying.
Remarkably, I find that same approach to be even more fruitful when
applied to your posts.
> But beyond that, I think this whole CR issue encapsulates a lot
> of what I believe are mistaken ideas about the philosophy of
> science that many t.o regulars have.
>
Or, mistaken ideas that you have about the philosophy and history of
science.
When everyone disagrees with you, it's sometimes because you're wrong.
In your case, it's usually because you're wrong.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Ken Cox
> The following are just a couple of examples of the Catholic Church's
> persecution of dissent picked up randomly from the book "Histoire de la
And, as Andy has recently reminded us,
5. In 1950 Pius XII writes an encyclical forbidding the teaching of
naturalistic philosophies.
Admittedly persecution of ideas has come down in scale a bit since
Bruno was burned, but the Index is still out there.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Robert Parson
Chris Ho-Stuart <host...@sky.fit.qut.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Cohen places great emphasis on contemporary witness for identifying
>a revolution. It is for this reason that he objects to a Copernican
>revolution. It was sixty years after the death of Copernicus before
>any of his ideas or methods began to be widely adopted. A notable
>exception was a book of astronomical tables published in 1551, but
>otherwise Copernicus' immediate influence was fairly limited.
>
>Only after work of Galileo and Kepler did any of Copernicus' ideas
>start to become widely used; and even then the only aspect used was
>motion of the Earth and other planets about the Sun. Both Galileo
>and Kepler identified themselves as "Copernicans", but in fact they
>only used his system in this very gross sense. Copernicus' actual
>model for motions was not used, nor was it at all influential for
>any later developments.
An article in the December 2000 issue of _Physics World_ (the British
analog to _Physics Today_) makes a similar point about Max Planck:
"If a revolution occurred in physics in December 1900, nobody seemed
to notice it. Planck was no exception, and the importance ascribed to
his work is largely a historical reconstruction. Whereas Planck's
radiation law was quickly accepted, what we today consider its conceptual
novelty - its basis in energy quantization - was scarecely noticed. Very
few physicists expressed any interest in the justification of Planck's
formula, and during the first few years of the 20th century no one
considered his results to conflict with the foundations of classical
physics. As for Planck himself, he strove hard to keep his theory on
the solid ground of the classical physics that he loved so much. Like
Copernicus, Planck became a revolutionary against his will."
["Max Planck: the reluctant revolutionary", by Helge Kragh,
_Physics World_ December 2000, pp. 31-35].
Kragh also refutes the myth that Planck came up with his formula in order
to escape from the "ultraviolet catastrophe" arising from the
Rayleigh-Jeans formula. That formula was published five years _after_
Planck's radiation law, and the term "ultraviolet catastrophe" was first
used in 1911. Since Planck did not accept the equipartition theorem
(the basis for the Rayleigh-Jeans derivation) as universally true, it
didn't interest him. (This observation is not new - historians of physics
pointed it out decades ago, and I believe I've even seen it in some of the
better popular books on quantum theory. But the myth is still widespread.)
------
Robert
leonardo dasso
The references to the Copernican revolution in Kant's Critique of pure
Reason are many and very clear. No conspiracy here.
Have a look at the following excerpts:
Kant's
Critique of Pure Reason
a translation
by
Norman Kemp Smith
an electronic edition
Courtesy of © Macmillan Press Ltd.
You can found the whole thing at:
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/cpr-open.html
From the preface to the second edition (1787):
"The examples of mathematics and natural science, which
by a single and sudden revolution have become what they
now are, seem to me sufficiently remarkable to suggest our
considering what may have been the essential features in the
changed point of view by which they have so greatly benefited."
[...]
"This would agree better with what is desired, namely, that it should
be possible to have knowledge of objects a priori, determining
something in regard to them prior to their being given. We
should then be proceeding precisely on the lines of Copernicus'
primary hypothesis. "
[...]
"This attempt to alter the procedure which has hitherto
prevailed in metaphysics, by completely revolutionising it
in accordance with the example set by the geometers and
physicists, forms indeed the main purpose of this critique of
pure speculative reason. "
-------
Also have a quick look for instance at Prof David Bell's chapter on Kant in
the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy.
have fun
leo
Roger Schlafly
> > > That's right. Scientists do not non-scientist political ideologues
> > > redefine their terms. Scientists continue to use the word
> > > revolution
> > > in its original sense, and pay no attention to the Kuhnians.
> > Maybe you would like to explain the following:
> > German uses "Umlauf/Umdrehung" *) for what you call the
> "scientific"
> > meaning of "revolution" - and "Revolution" for what you call
> > the "political" meaning.
> > Yet everyone speaks about the "Kopernikanische Revolution".
> Those damn Germans. Hell, Marx was a German national. Freud
> was an Austrian, which is almost the same as a German. I haven't
> fit Gould in yet, but I'm sure that if we work on it, we can fit him into
> the conspiracy as well.
There are also possibilities of mistranslation here. Was the CR
translated into German? Maybe Kant and those other Germans just
looked at the CR title in Latin, De Revolutionibus, and thought
it about the German revolution, not umlauf/umdrehung.
Roger Schlafly
Roger Schlafly
> > I never liked Kant either, but IB Cohen has a whole chapter in
> > his book disputing this reference (according to accounts here
> > on t.o). Possibly Kant has been misinterpreted by others.
> The references to the Copernican revolution in Kant's Critique of pure
> Reason are many and very clear. No conspiracy here.
> Have a look at the following excerpts:
But your excerpts below have no reference to CR! The closest is
the reference to "Copernicus' primary hypothesis", but that is
unambiguously a scientific hypothesis.