What If?

[Bill]

What if the Babylonians had discovered how to make glass
4000 years ago. Soon after they learned how to make lenses
and then figured out how to make a telescope. They saw the
craters of the moon, then the moons of Jupiter and even
galaxies. Would they be doing science?

The Babylonians also had an elaborate religion consisting of
many gods with many powers controlling nature. It would
follow that their explanations for what they saw with their
telescopes would be religious. Their observations would fit
within their religion and it would all make sense - to them.

Their observations would match what is there to observe.
They would be the same as modern observations. Only the
explanations would be different. How can we know that their
explanations are incorrect? Their religion played the same
role as theory does now. The explanations have changed but
is that really significant?

I don't know of course, but this hypothesis is interesting
in that it offers a different perspective.

Bill

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 18 September 2017 20:45:03 UTC+3, Bill wrote:
> What if the Babylonians had discovered how to make glass
> 4000 years ago. Soon after they learned how to make lenses
> and then figured out how to make a telescope. They saw the
> craters of the moon, then the moons of Jupiter and even
> galaxies. Would they be doing science?
>
> The Babylonians also had an elaborate religion consisting of
> many gods with many powers controlling nature. It would
> follow that their explanations for what they saw with their
> telescopes would be religious. Their observations would fit
> within their religion and it would all make sense - to them.

Note that to explain something with some fantasy explanation
is about as hard as to end half of a sentence with some
absurd joke.

> Their observations would match what is there to observe.
> They would be the same as modern observations. Only the
> explanations would be different. How can we know that their
> explanations are incorrect? Their religion played the same
> role as theory does now. The explanations have changed but
> is that really significant?

We have made far more observations and recorded those better.
Our explanations are mathematical. We can use these in
projecting and predicting the behavior of our technologies
that we use. Our technologies serve even those who deny the
explanations while Jesus accepts only those who believe in
Him.

> I don't know of course, but this hypothesis is interesting
> in that it offers a different perspective.

We are very far from capability to explain everything that
we observe. Tiny list of observations with missing explanations
(or that have several weakly substantiated alternatives as
explanations):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

[Sean Dillon]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 12:45:03 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> What if the Babylonians had discovered how to make glass
> 4000 years ago. Soon after they learned how to make lenses
> and then figured out how to make a telescope. They saw the
> craters of the moon, then the moons of Jupiter and even
> galaxies. Would they be doing science?
>

They would be doing science (as the term is currently understood) if they were developing testable hypotheses out of their explanations.

> The Babylonians also had an elaborate religion consisting of
> many gods with many powers controlling nature. It would
> follow that their explanations for what they saw with their
> telescopes would be religious. Their observations would fit
> within their religion and it would all make sense - to them.
>
> Their observations would match what is there to observe.
> They would be the same as modern observations. Only the
> explanations would be different. How can we know that their
> explanations are incorrect? Their religion played the same
> role as theory does now. The explanations have changed but
> is that really significant?

We cannot know that their explanations are incorrect, because their explanations aren't testable. Science's requirement for testability is significant, as that is what gives science its rigor.

[Bill]

You missed the whole point by a wide margin. If one gets the
same results regardless of the methods used, do the methods
matter? Do we need explanations at all if things work
without them? Does technology only matter after the fact? If
one can explain something without reference to science and
get things to work, is science even relevant? Does science
really matter as an explanation or does it exist to gives us
comfort in our ignorance?

Bill

[Bill]

The point is: is the way we have developed a knowledge of
nature either correct or exclusive?

Bill

[Mike Dworetsky]

Bill wrote:
> What if the Babylonians had discovered how to make glass
> 4000 years ago. Soon after they learned how to make lenses
> and then figured out how to make a telescope. They saw the
> craters of the moon, then the moons of Jupiter and even
> galaxies. Would they be doing science?

The Romans definitely had glass, though not perhaps as transparent as
Galileo's. I do not recall that any archaeology has ever found lenses,
though spectacle making (much later) was known before Galileo.

Developing decent achromatic lenses took about another 150 years. Up to
then chromatic aberrations placed severe limits on what could be observed.

Galaxies would have been difficult to see as much more than a faint smudge.

>
> The Babylonians also had an elaborate religion consisting of
> many gods with many powers controlling nature. It would
> follow that their explanations for what they saw with their
> telescopes would be religious. Their observations would fit
> within their religion and it would all make sense - to them.
>
> Their observations would match what is there to observe.
> They would be the same as modern observations. Only the
> explanations would be different. How can we know that their
> explanations are incorrect? Their religion played the same
> role as theory does now. The explanations have changed but
> is that really significant?
>
> I don't know of course, but this hypothesis is interesting
> in that it offers a different perspective.
>
> Bill

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Sean Dillon]

Yes. Science absolutely matters. Making those observations and attributing them to gods tells us nothing about the larger picture of how the universe works. On the other hand, taking those observations and theorizing from them allows us to make predictions about OTHER parts of reality, which has value.

[Bill Rogers]

Galileo, or someone defending him, made the following argument. The whole business about the planets going around the sun is simply a mathematical construct that allows us to correctly predict their movements in the sky. We aren't saying the the earth *really* goes around the sun, only that the mathematical system that is based on that idea allows us to predict observations accurately. Of course everyone knows that the sun goes around the earth; all Galileo does is use some math to "preserve the phenomena."

In a nutshell, that's anti-realism, and while this seems like an extreme example, anti-realism is not some fringe idea in philosophy of science. It gets taken seriously. The problem anti-realists have to deal with is the technological effectiveness of science. But it's perfectly possible to argue that the mathematical machinery of quantum mechanics or general relativity is simply a mechanism to "preserve the phenomena" and to predict new observations, but that the mental models of what the world is like that underlie them are either wrong or irrelevant.

There are problems with anti-realism, I think, but it seems like where you want to go with your not so very fully formed ideas.

[Öö Tiib]

Most of our knowledge has gaps in it some of it is also likely
incorrect but usually it works. So the way is not guaranteeing
100% correctness but is good enough in practice. I don't understand
what you mean by exclusive. It is likely that it can be improved and
there can be alternatives that are better.

[jillery]

On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:02:30 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

That's a pretty good list. My impression is every one of those items
have been declared at one time or another as evidence of ID.


--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[RonO]

The likely wouldn't have been flat earthers after that and the cosmology
that the writers of the Bible had to work with would be quite different
and the Bible would have been written differently than it was.

Face it. If the Bible were written today, it would be written
differently than it was. We know that the Babylonians and others with
similar flat earth cosmologies were wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

Your hypothetical requires that your presumptive Babylonians had
discovered theories which allowed them to figure out how make glass,
and of sufficient optical quality, and how to mold and grind glass to
the right shape, and with sufficient accuracy, to make a telescope.
People don't figure out how to do those things by randomly guessing
what to do.

And since your presumptive Babylonians necessarily would have learned
to construct useful theories which explained how to do these things,
then it's almost certain they would have also applied said learning to
construct useful theories to explain their observations through the
telescope. After all, that's what Galileo did.

"The Bible says how to go to heaven, not how the Heavens go".

[Bill]

We don't know. It never occurred to anyone to develop
technology so there was none. There obviously could have
been but no one saw the need apparently.

Bill

[Bill]

No theory was necessary and plain old tinkering would have
been sufficient. You assume that the way we do things is the
only way. We know what has worked for us but that does not
mean it is the only way.

Bill

[RonO]

We don't know what? Is the earth flat? Is the sun and moon imbedded in
a firmament above us?

> It never occurred to anyone to develop
> technology so there was none. There obviously could have
> been but no one saw the need apparently.

Even if it never occurred to them they were still wrong.

Are you a flat earth geocentric creationist? Why not?

>
> Bill
>
>

[jillery]

Your presumptive Babylonians could have done nothing like you suggest
without having good theories to guide them on which of the innumerable
possible steps to take next, theories which explained their
observations well and got them closer to their goals.

Watch people who are naive about astronomy use a telescope for the
first time, whether it's as primitive as Galileo's handmade pieces, or
a computer-controlled machine that can be bought OTC. They have no
idea how to set it up or where to look in the sky. They need a theory
to do even that. A large fraction of them will use it to spy on their
neighbors.

And even when someone sets up the telescope for them, and points it at
the sky for them, they might observe Galileo's moons around Jupiter,
or the phases of Venus, just like Galileo did, but won't deduce these
are proof Ptolemy was wrong. They would need a good theory to
understand that, just like Galileo did.

[Bill]

You obviously haven't given this much thought. Why should
you, you've got the standardized version of things as your
guide.

Bill

[jillery]

Let me know when you have thought about it at all.

[Robert Carnegie]

If methodical observations contradict your preconceptions
- religious cosmology in this case - and you set aside
your preconceptions as a result, maybe you're "doing
science".

Presumably you have it in mind that Christianity
had trouble digesting astronomical evidence,
and by "trouble" I mean agonising torture and
execution and book-burning of people who
scientifically "got the wrong idea" so to speak.

I don't happen to know what are the main points of
Babylonian belief that are contrary to twenty-first
century opinions, although a lot found its way into
the bible as well.

[Bill]

You managed to completely miss the point. Are you sure
you're replying to the right post?

Bill

[Martin Harran]

Examples?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 11:48:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Your "point" appears to be "A stopped clock is right twice a
day, so why use one that runs?". Does that sum it up, or do
you think that the Babylonians got everything right which
science has? They didn't.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Robert Carnegie]

Oh, Charles Darwin, and Copernicus, Galileo,
the cheese guy - you know 'em all. And The Beatles
and David Bowie.

[Robert Carnegie]

I answered your question with a statement of what
science is, and how to tell when it's being done;
when you learn by investigation something that
you didn't know, and also when you learn that what
you did "know" is wrong. So for Babylonian
telescopists the question is: what do they do
then about their previously received ideas?

Galileo's accusers are said to have refused to look
into his telescope themselves. That probably isn't
what happened, but I don't remember a record which
says that they did look.

[Inez]

I think that you need to give some examples of what these "alternate explanations" would be, because I'm not seeing your point.

If you drop a brick on your foot you can claim that a demon made it hurt and the brick was a coincidence, but sane people will be able to tell you're a nitwit.

[Martin Harran]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 15:03:50 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

How many of those underwent "agonising torture and execution" ?

[Robert Carnegie]

Now you mention it, just John Lennon and the cheese guy.
But there are others I didn't name who died for truth -
to stop them from telling people about it.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:15:30 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

In other words, you were blowing smoke.

[Robert Carnegie]

It does seem that most scientists heard about the
cheese guy and decided that one particular experiment
didn't need to be replicated. Galileo, we know about.
And his example may be followed. A casual check online
doesn't produce anyone's actual calendar of martyrs of
science murdered by churchgoers offended by evolution
or a solar eclipse or whatever. Pretty much just the
cheese guy. And people whose own science experiments
led to their demise, but I'm looking for religious
persecution of reasoning.

[Bill]

There was an actual topic being discussed but it proved too
difficult for most to follow so it mutated into the demented
blather we see above.

Bill

[jillery]

Your demented blather disqualifies you from complaining about other
posters' demented blather.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:46:23 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

I haven't a clue who you mean by "the cheese guy", perhaps you could
explain.

>Galileo, we know about.

Yes indeed, we know he was neither tortured nor executed.

>And his example may be followed.

Indeed, I am pretty sure that just like Galileo, other scientists will
not be tortured nor put to death for their scientific ideas by
Christians authorities.

> A casual check online
>doesn't produce anyone's actual calendar of martyrs of
>science murdered by churchgoers offended by evolution
>or a solar eclipse or whatever.

Bercause there are none.

Funny, I would have expected to you to know that. I thought you were
someone who was reasonably knowledgeable and were just lashing out at
religion; now you seem to be suggesting that you're just a dumbhead
who makes claims about things he knows nothing about.

>Pretty much just the
>cheese guy. And people whose own science experiments
>led to their demise, but I'm looking for religious
>persecution of reasoning.

Of which you seem unable to find any examples that support your
specific claim that 'Christianity had trouble digesting astronomical
evidence,and by "trouble" I mean agonising torture and execution and

book-burning of people who scientifically "got the wrong idea" so to

speak.'

[Bill Rogers]

Galileo was only threatened with torture, not tortured and executed. Giordano Bruno, though he held a Copernican view of astronomy, was tortured and executed for holding heretical religious beliefs (of which the belief in multiple worlds was the least of his troubles). I think it's pretty safe to say that vastly more people were tortured and executed by the Church for their religious opinions than for their scientific ones.

Not sure about actual book burning, but certainly works of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus were included in the index of prohibited books. Not sure how much of an impact that inclusion actually had, though.

[Martin Harran]

For some reason, Robert Carnegie chose to portray it otherwise.

>Giordano Bruno, though he held a Copernican view of astronomy, was tortured and executed for holding heretical religious beliefs (of which the belief in multiple worlds was the least of his troubles).

Yes, buried into the "other charges", something like a burglar charged
with stealing valuable paintings worth millions and his charge sheet
including damaging a $10 bolt on the door.

> I think it's pretty safe to say that vastly more people were tortured and executed by the Church for their religious opinions than for their scientific ones.

I think you will find it was *all* of them, not just the majority -
not that that made it right of course!

>
>Not sure about actual book burning, but certainly works of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus were included in the index of prohibited books. Not sure how much of an impact that inclusion actually had, though.

Very little, I would imagine and, indeed, likely to have the opposite
effect to that intended. I remember in the 1960s in "good, Catholic
Ireland" that it was very fashionable among teenagers in particular to
hunt down copies of banned books brought in from "pagan England";
authors being banned like Irish writer Edna O'Brien actually boosted
readership pf their books.

The Index actually reminds me a bit of papal infallibility, it is
something that seems to preoccupy non-Catholics far more than
Catholics.

[Robert Carnegie]

You say he couldn't complain then?

Well, except for what he said under his breath
so no one could hear (and so how do we know).

If we're talking about science in general that
the church had a problem with, isn't a belief
that transubstantiation doesn't happen basically
a scientific point of view? And I think the pope
/still/ insists that there is no need for the body
of Christ to be provided in gluten-free form
for the safety of worshippers.

A lot of people got burned - literally - over
the transubstantiation question.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 14:24:26 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Still waiting for you to tell me who "the cheese guy" is.

>> >>
>> >> >Galileo, we know about.
>> >>
>> >> Yes indeed, we know he was neither tortured nor executed.
>> >>
>> >> >And his example may be followed.
>> >>
>> >> Indeed, I am pretty sure that just like Galileo, other scientists will
>> >> not be tortured nor put to death for their scientific ideas by
>> >> Christians authorities.
>> >
>> >Galileo was only threatened with torture, not tortured and executed.
>>
>> For some reason, Robert Carnegie chose to portray it otherwise.
>
>You say he couldn't complain then?

No, I'm saying that he wasn't tortured and executed as you claimed.

>
>Well, except for what he said under his breath
>so no one could hear (and so how do we know).
>
>If we're talking about science in general that
>the church had a problem with, isn't a belief
>that transubstantiation doesn't happen basically
>a scientific point of view? And I think the pope
>/still/ insists that there is no need for the body
>of Christ to be provided in gluten-free form
>for the safety of worshippers.
>
>A lot of people got burned - literally - over
>the transubstantiation question.

Trying to change the subject doesn't hide the fact that you were
blowing smoke about people suffering agonising torture and
execution over *astronomical matters*.

[Bill Rogers]

I expect you are correct. The Church was not as effective in suppressing astronomical science as it tried to be. Censorship is often pretty hard to enforce.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:35:22 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

It never fails to amuse me when people who place so much emphasis on
evidence, try to make a case on one single incident 400 years ago and
simply ignore all the contradictory evidence.

[jillery]

This topic has come up often enough in T.O., and you have responded
similarly each time as above, that one might think Robert would have
known better. His choice of words did you a favor.

>>Censorship is often pretty hard to enforce.
>>
>>>
>>> The Index actually reminds me a bit of papal infallibility, it is
>>> something that seems to preoccupy non-Catholics far more than
>>> Catholics.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> > A casual check online
>>> >> >doesn't produce anyone's actual calendar of martyrs of
>>> >> >science murdered by churchgoers offended by evolution
>>> >> >or a solar eclipse or whatever.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bercause there are none.
>>> >>
>>> >> Funny, I would have expected to you to know that. I thought you were
>>> >> someone who was reasonably knowledgeable and were just lashing out at
>>> >> religion; now you seem to be suggesting that you're just a dumbhead
>>> >> who makes claims about things he knows nothing about.
>>> >>
>>> >> >Pretty much just the
>>> >> >cheese guy. And people whose own science experiments
>>> >> >led to their demise, but I'm looking for religious
>>> >> >persecution of reasoning.
>>> >>
>>> >> Of which you seem unable to find any examples that support your
>>> >> specific claim that 'Christianity had trouble digesting astronomical
>>> >> evidence,and by "trouble" I mean agonising torture and execution and
>>> >> book-burning of people who scientifically "got the wrong idea" so to
>>> >> speak.'
>>> >

[Bill Rogers]

Not quite sure what you're objecting to. I agreed that Galileo was only threatened with torture, not actually tortured and executed, and that Bruno was tortured and executed for his religious beliefs rather than his astronomical ones, and that the Church's attempts to suppress heliocentrism by putting the works of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus on the index of prohibited books were not particularly effective. And that the Church spent vastly more time and energy suppressing religious beliefs it didn't like than scientific ones. So I'm not sure what's amusing you.

[Robert Carnegie]

I said "agonising torture and execution and book-burning".
I still think that's valid, although I hope you'll allow
"book-burning" to include burning The Beatles' records
as well. And of course shooting The Beatles.

Also any time a church teacher physically beat a pupil
for saying that Earth goes around the sun. Maybe Ireland
won't have been so lax after all.

I didn't actually trace any of these acts against
David Bowie either. I can keep looking if you like.
I thought with "Star Man" and "Space Oddity" and all
that, he must have offended Christians, but all that
I found so far was a "Bowie Church" holding a bonfire
of the vanities. Including The Beatles, I think.

Also we need to be specific about "reprisals against
astronomy and dynamics" versus "reprisals against
scientific knowledge in general". It's the former
that I'm short of.

[jillery]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 14:00:09 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie

Yep. You get credit for admitting what you posted, unlike some
posters.

>I still think that's valid, although I hope you'll allow
>"book-burning" to include burning The Beatles' records
>as well. And of course shooting The Beatles.

It depends. You posted a laundry list of examples, whose connections
aren't obvious to me. So it depends on what you meant those to be
examples of. My impression you were quite content to follow where you
were led. If that topic wasn't what you meant your list to
illustrate, I would have expected a different response from you at the
time the thread jumped the track.

>Also any time a church teacher physically beat a pupil
>for saying that Earth goes around the sun. Maybe Ireland
>won't have been so lax after all.
>
>I didn't actually trace any of these acts against
>David Bowie either. I can keep looking if you like.
>I thought with "Star Man" and "Space Oddity" and all
>that, he must have offended Christians, but all that
>I found so far was a "Bowie Church" holding a bonfire
>of the vanities. Including The Beatles, I think.
>
>Also we need to be specific about "reprisals against
>astronomy and dynamics" versus "reprisals against
>scientific knowledge in general". It's the former
>that I'm short of.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 2:00:03 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:35:22 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

[...]

>> >I expect you are correct. The Church was not as effective in suppressing astronomical science as it tried to be.
>>
>> It never fails to amuse me when people who place so much emphasis on
>> evidence, try to make a case on one single incident 400 years ago and
>> simply ignore all the contradictory evidence.
>
>Not quite sure what you're objecting to. I agreed that Galileo was only threatened with torture, not actually tortured and executed, and that Bruno was tortured and executed for his religious beliefs rather than his astronomical ones, and that the Church's attempts to suppress heliocentrism by putting the works of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus on the index of prohibited books were not particularly effective. And that the Church spent vastly more time and energy suppressing religious beliefs it didn't like than scientific ones. So I'm not sure what's amusing you.

Riddle me this; if the Church was so intent on suppressing
heliocentrism, how come the Pope directly commissioned Galileo to
write a book presenting *in a neutral manner* the arguments for and
against heliocentrism vs geocentrism?

[...]

[Bill Rogers]

Ahh, "teach the controversy."

>
> [...]

If the Church was not interested in suppressing heliocentrism, why were Galileo's and Copernicus' books on the Index?

[Öö Tiib]

Because some humans are evil and eager to pretend to be stupid and
religious as excuse of doing evil things. Perhaps that is why condiment
#2 of His Noodly Goodness is more straight to the point:

"I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress,
Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I
Don't Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People."

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:01:43 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 8:50:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 2:00:03 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:35:22 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> >I expect you are correct. The Church was not as effective in suppressing astronomical science as it tried to be.
>> >>
>> >> It never fails to amuse me when people who place so much emphasis on
>> >> evidence, try to make a case on one single incident 400 years ago and
>> >> simply ignore all the contradictory evidence.
>> >
>> >Not quite sure what you're objecting to. I agreed that Galileo was only threatened with torture, not actually tortured and executed, and that Bruno was tortured and executed for his religious beliefs rather than his astronomical ones, and that the Church's attempts to suppress heliocentrism by putting the works of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus on the index of prohibited books were not particularly effective. And that the Church spent vastly more time and energy suppressing religious beliefs it didn't like than scientific ones. So I'm not sure what's amusing you.
>>
>> Riddle me this; if the Church was so intent on suppressing
>> heliocentrism, how come the Pope directly commissioned Galileo to
>> write a book presenting *in a neutral manner* the arguments for and
>> against heliocentrism vs geocentrism?
>
>Ahh, "teach the controversy."

Errr ... what part of "in a neutral manner" did you not quite grasp?

[Bill Rogers]

It's hard to present heliocentrism and geocentrism "in a neutral manner" if you actually care about the truth.

And, in any case, the Church put heliocentric texts on the Index and Cardinal Bellarmine published the following certificate

Cardinal Bellarmine's Certificate (26 May 1616) 58

We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, have heard that Mr. Galileo Galilei is being slandered or alleged to have abjured in our hands and also to have been given salutary penances for this. Having been sought about the truth of the matter, we say that the above-mentioned Galileo has not abjured in our hands, or in the hands of others here in Rome, or anywhere else that we know, any opinion or doctrine of his; nor has he received any penances, salutary or otherwise. ****On the contrary, he has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held.****** In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on this 26th day of May 1616.

Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.


If you want to argue that the Church killed nobody for holding heliocentric views you may well be correct. But you've got a tough road if you want to argue that the Church did not try to suppress heliocentrism. Eventually they got over it, though, and probably didn't obstruct scientific progress all that mch.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 16:41:12 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

<broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 6:30:02 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:01:43 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 8:50:02 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 24 Sep 2017 03:40:47 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Sunday, September 24, 2017 at 2:00:03 AM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:35:22 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> >> >I expect you are correct. The Church was not as effective in suppressing astronomical science as it tried to be.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It never fails to amuse me when people who place so much emphasis on
>> >> >> evidence, try to make a case on one single incident 400 years ago and
>> >> >> simply ignore all the contradictory evidence.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not quite sure what you're objecting to. I agreed that Galileo was only threatened with torture, not actually tortured and executed, and that Bruno was tortured and executed for his religious beliefs rather than his astronomical ones, and that the Church's attempts to suppress heliocentrism by putting the works of Galileo, Kepler, and Copernicus on the index of prohibited books were not particularly effective. And that the Church spent vastly more time and energy suppressing religious beliefs it didn't like than scientific ones. So I'm not sure what's amusing you.
>> >>
>> >> Riddle me this; if the Church was so intent on suppressing
>> >> heliocentrism, how come the Pope directly commissioned Galileo to
>> >> write a book presenting *in a neutral manner* the arguments for and
>> >> against heliocentrism vs geocentrism?
>> >
>> >Ahh, "teach the controversy."
>>
>> Errr ... what part of "in a neutral manner" did you not quite grasp?
>
>It's hard to present heliocentrism and geocentrism "in a neutral manner" if you actually care about the truth.

Your feelings about the difficulty of the task do nothing to address
the significance of the Pope commissioning the task.

>
>And, in any case, the Church put heliocentric texts on the Index and Cardinal Bellarmine published the following certificate
>
>Cardinal Bellarmine's Certificate (26 May 1616) 58
>
>We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, have heard that Mr. Galileo Galilei is being slandered or alleged to have abjured in our hands and also to have been given salutary penances for this. Having been sought about the truth of the matter, we say that the above-mentioned Galileo has not abjured in our hands, or in the hands of others here in Rome, or anywhere else that we know, any opinion or doctrine of his; nor has he received any penances, salutary or otherwise. ****On the contrary, he has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held.****** In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on this 26th day of May 1616.

None of which addresses the question I asked you about how come the
Pope commissioned Galileo to write his book.

>
>Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.
>
>
>If you want to argue that the Church killed nobody for holding heliocentric views you may well be correct.

There is no "MAY be correct" about it, I AM correct. That is exactly
the sort of thing that annoys me in these debates about Galileo; you
know fine well that the church never killed anybody for holding
heliocentric views but you still try to imply that they might have.

>But you've got a tough road if you want to argue that the Church did not try to suppress heliocentrism. Eventually they got over it, though, and probably didn't obstruct scientific progress all that mch.

And again, no "probably" about it. Heliocentric works being placed on
the Index might have made some of the hardliners in the Vatican feel
self-satisfied but it had no impact whatsoever on the progress of
science.

And I don't particularly see this as a tough road; when people try to
present Galileo as evidence for the church being anti-science, I
simply ask them to name ahistorian who has studied the subject and
agrees with them. Nobody has come up with one yet, can you?

[Bill Rogers]

Sure they do.

>
> >
> >And, in any case, the Church put heliocentric texts on the Index and Cardinal Bellarmine published the following certificate
> >
> >Cardinal Bellarmine's Certificate (26 May 1616) 58
> >
> >We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, have heard that Mr. Galileo Galilei is being slandered or alleged to have abjured in our hands and also to have been given salutary penances for this. Having been sought about the truth of the matter, we say that the above-mentioned Galileo has not abjured in our hands, or in the hands of others here in Rome, or anywhere else that we know, any opinion or doctrine of his; nor has he received any penances, salutary or otherwise. ****On the contrary, he has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held.****** In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on this 26th day of May 1616.
>
> None of which addresses the question I asked you about how come the
> Pope commissioned Galileo to write his book.

He commissioned Galileo to write the book because he wanted to see heliocentrism and geocentrism placed on an equal footing, without a conclusion being drawn about which one was correct. When Galileo wrote a dialogue that made the geocentric view look foolish, the Pope was displeased.

> >
> >Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.
> >
> >
> >If you want to argue that the Church killed nobody for holding heliocentric views you may well be correct.
>
> There is no "MAY be correct" about it, I AM correct. That is exactly
> the sort of thing that annoys me in these debates about Galileo; you
> know fine well that the church never killed anybody for holding
> heliocentric views but you still try to imply that they might have.

You're quite right. They only tortured and killed people for their religious beliefs, not their scientific ones.

>
> >But you've got a tough road if you want to argue that the Church did not try to suppress heliocentrism. Eventually they got over it, though, and probably didn't obstruct scientific progress all that mch.
>
> And again, no "probably" about it. Heliocentric works being placed on
> the Index might have made some of the hardliners in the Vatican feel
> self-satisfied but it had no impact whatsoever on the progress of
> science.

Sure, they tried to suppress heliocentrism, but didn't succeed very well. Then they eventually changed their minds and let it go.

The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?

I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.

Sure, they weren't killing scientists for their scientific beliefs, and they were far more vicious in suppressing heresy than in suppressing heliocentrism. But they still don't look particularly appealing.

>
> And I don't particularly see this as a tough road; when people try to
> present Galileo as evidence for the church being anti-science, I
> simply ask them to name ahistorian who has studied the subject and
> agrees with them. Nobody has come up with one yet, can you?
>

.......

> >> >If the Church was not interested in suppressing heliocentrism, why were Galileo's and Copernicus' books on the Index?

You never did answer this question.....

> >

[Martin Harran]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

Care to explain how?

>
>>
>> >
>> >And, in any case, the Church put heliocentric texts on the Index and Cardinal Bellarmine published the following certificate
>> >
>> >Cardinal Bellarmine's Certificate (26 May 1616) 58
>> >
>> >We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, have heard that Mr. Galileo Galilei is being slandered or alleged to have abjured in our hands and also to have been given salutary penances for this. Having been sought about the truth of the matter, we say that the above-mentioned Galileo has not abjured in our hands, or in the hands of others here in Rome, or anywhere else that we know, any opinion or doctrine of his; nor has he received any penances, salutary or otherwise. ****On the contrary, he has only been notified of the declaration made by the Holy Father and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, whose content is that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus (that the earth moves around the sun and the sun stands at the center of the world without moving from east to west) is contrary to Holy Scripture and therefore cannot be defended or held.****** In witness whereof we have written and signed this with our own hands, on this 26th day of May 1616.
>>
>> None of which addresses the question I asked you about how come the
>> Pope commissioned Galileo to write his book.
>
>He commissioned Galileo to write the book because he wanted to see heliocentrism and geocentrism placed on an equal footing, without a conclusion being drawn about which one was correct.

You really need to explain how putting a new idea on an equal footing
with existing thinking equates to trying to supress that new idea.

>When Galileo wrote a dialogue that made the geocentric view look foolish, the Pope was displeased.
>
>> >
>> >Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.
>> >
>> >
>> >If you want to argue that the Church killed nobody for holding heliocentric views you may well be correct.
>>
>> There is no "MAY be correct" about it, I AM correct. That is exactly
>> the sort of thing that annoys me in these debates about Galileo; you
>> know fine well that the church never killed anybody for holding
>> heliocentric views but you still try to imply that they might have.
>
>You're quite right. They only tortured and killed people for their religious beliefs, not their scientific ones.

Well, at least we have cleared up that ambiguity in what you were
saying.

>
>>
>> >But you've got a tough road if you want to argue that the Church did not try to suppress heliocentrism. Eventually they got over it, though, and probably didn't obstruct scientific progress all that mch.
>>
>> And again, no "probably" about it. Heliocentric works being placed on
>> the Index might have made some of the hardliners in the Vatican feel
>> self-satisfied but it had no impact whatsoever on the progress of
>> science.
>
>Sure, they tried to suppress heliocentrism, but didn't succeed very well. Then they eventually changed their minds and let it go.


>
>The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
>
>I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.

You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
*actually* impeded scientific progress.

>
>Sure, they weren't killing scientists for their scientific beliefs, and they were far more vicious in suppressing heresy than in suppressing heliocentrism. But they still don't look particularly appealing.
>
>>
>> And I don't particularly see this as a tough road; when people try to
>> present Galileo as evidence for the church being anti-science, I
>> simply ask them to name ahistorian who has studied the subject and
>> agrees with them. Nobody has come up with one yet, can you?
>>
>.......
>> >> >If the Church was not interested in suppressing heliocentrism, why were Galileo's and Copernicus' books on the Index?
>
>You never did answer this question.....

*Some* people in the Church thought Galileo's ideas were heretical but
it was never mainstraem thinking. As Augustus De Morgan - no
particular friend of the Catholic Church - put it in *A Budget of
Paradoxes*(1872):

"It is clear that the absurdity[of the case of Galileo] was the act of
the Italian inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the
pope — who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope
— and not of the body which calls itself the Church."

[Bill Rogers]

When the evidence strongly supports the new idea and the Church tells you that you must present it as though the evidence on both sides was of equal weight, that's suppression (especially when backed by threats of torture and censorship).

Look, in the end the Church backed off and took the right course on heliocentrism. What's so hard about admitting that at first they made a mistake in threatening Galileo with torture and proscribing his writings?

>
> >When Galileo wrote a dialogue that made the geocentric view look foolish, the Pope was displeased.
> >
> >> >
> >> >Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >If you want to argue that the Church killed nobody for holding heliocentric views you may well be correct.
> >>
> >> There is no "MAY be correct" about it, I AM correct. That is exactly
> >> the sort of thing that annoys me in these debates about Galileo; you
> >> know fine well that the church never killed anybody for holding
> >> heliocentric views but you still try to imply that they might have.
> >
> >You're quite right. They only tortured and killed people for their religious beliefs, not their scientific ones.
>
> Well, at least we have cleared up that ambiguity in what you were
> saying.

What was ambiguous? Don't conflate me with other posters. I've said all along that the Church "only" threatened Galileo with torture and that they executed and tortured people for their theological beliefs rather than their scientific ones.

One could argue that being shown the instruments of torture and implicitly threatened with them is, in fact, a form of torture, but they certainly didn't pull out his fingernails.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >But you've got a tough road if you want to argue that the Church did not try to suppress heliocentrism. Eventually they got over it, though, and probably didn't obstruct scientific progress all that mch.
> >>
> >> And again, no "probably" about it. Heliocentric works being placed on
> >> the Index might have made some of the hardliners in the Vatican feel
> >> self-satisfied but it had no impact whatsoever on the progress of
> >> science.
> >
> >Sure, they tried to suppress heliocentrism, but didn't succeed very well. Then they eventually changed their minds and let it go.
>
>
> >
> >The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
> >
> >I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.
>
> You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
> here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
> either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
> *actually* impeded scientific progress.

I'm not talking about "Science" with a big S, I'm talking about Copernicanism. Since that put the books supporting heliocentrism on the Index, its pretty hard to conclude anything other than that they were trying to suppress heliocentrism, They came around eventually. Bully for them.

>
> >
> >Sure, they weren't killing scientists for their scientific beliefs, and they were far more vicious in suppressing heresy than in suppressing heliocentrism. But they still don't look particularly appealing.
> >
> >>
> >> And I don't particularly see this as a tough road; when people try to
> >> present Galileo as evidence for the church being anti-science, I
> >> simply ask them to name ahistorian who has studied the subject and
> >> agrees with them. Nobody has come up with one yet, can you?
> >>
> >.......
> >> >> >If the Church was not interested in suppressing heliocentrism, why were Galileo's and Copernicus' books on the Index?
> >
> >You never did answer this question.....
>
> *Some* people in the Church thought Galileo's ideas were heretical but
> it was never mainstraem thinking. As Augustus De Morgan - no
> particular friend of the Catholic Church - put it in *A Budget of
> Paradoxes*(1872):
>
> "It is clear that the absurdity[of the case of Galileo] was the act of
> the Italian inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the
> pope — who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope
> — and not of the body which calls itself the Church."

So what? They threatened him with torture and put his writings on the Index. Wiser heads eventually prevailed.

I am not, repeat not, making the argument that others may have made that the Church was generically hostile to science. But they messed up badly about heliocentrism for a while.

[lbjohn...@yahoo.com]

>Bill

>You missed the whole point by a wide margin. If one gets the
>same results regardless of the methods used, do the methods
>matter?

This is a profound question. It really relates to how science works,
and secondarily to the average persons perceptions of why or
how research is conducted.
It’s unlikely we can know exactly how
nature works. What everyone (no matter their educational qualifications)
does is construct models of whatever it is that interests them. Then,
their explanations are predicated on the models they’ve constructed,
intentionally or otherwise. The secret to achieving some “truth” is to
question their own model.

> Do we need explanations at all if things work
>without them?

Ask an engineer and he’ll tell you ‘no, it doesn’t matter’. Ask a consumer
and he’ll tell you the same. Ask a theorist and he’ll tell you they’re both
right but he wants more. This is the science most don’t understand.
Not out of ignorance, but because their expectations depend on their
personal model constructs and/or immediate needs.

>Does technology only matter after the fact? If
>one can explain something without reference to science and
>get things to work, is science even relevant?

Did the ancients understand displacement as it relates to boats?
Yet, long before Archimedes people built canoes.

> Does science
>really matter as an explanation or does it exist to gives us
>comfort in our ignorance?

It seems not so in that model.

Brad
Be Rational And Devout...no one minds.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 05:22:15 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

You seem to have a rather strange concept of what suppression is,
especially when Galileo's own scientific peers where not prepared to
accept his ideas as conclusive at the time all this was going on.

>
>Look, in the end the Church backed off and took the right course on heliocentrism. What's so hard about admitting that at first they made a mistake in threatening Galileo with torture and proscribing his writings?

I have no problem whatsoever admitting that they made a mistake in
threatening Galileo torture and describing his writings or that they
treated Galileo desperately badly, but that is not what is at issue
here which is your claim that this was the Church trying to suppress
science.

>
>>
>> >When Galileo wrote a dialogue that made the geocentric view look foolish, the Pope was displeased.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >If you want to argue that the Church killed nobody for holding heliocentric views you may well be correct.
>> >>
>> >> There is no "MAY be correct" about it, I AM correct. That is exactly
>> >> the sort of thing that annoys me in these debates about Galileo; you
>> >> know fine well that the church never killed anybody for holding
>> >> heliocentric views but you still try to imply that they might have.
>> >
>> >You're quite right. They only tortured and killed people for their religious beliefs, not their scientific ones.
>>
>> Well, at least we have cleared up that ambiguity in what you were
>> saying.
>
>What was ambiguous? Don't conflate me with other posters. I've said all along that the Church "only" threatened Galileo with torture and that they executed and tortured people for their theological beliefs rather than their scientific ones.

I am not conflating you with anyone else, it was YOU who said " If you

want to argue that the Church killed nobody for holding heliocentric

views you MAY well be correct" (my emphasis added) - your use of the
word "may" suggested that there was still some question about it. That
was the ambiguity I referred to.

>
>One could argue that being shown the instruments of torture and implicitly threatened with them is, in fact, a form of torture, but they certainly didn't pull out his fingernails.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >But you've got a tough road if you want to argue that the Church did not try to suppress heliocentrism. Eventually they got over it, though, and probably didn't obstruct scientific progress all that mch.
>> >>
>> >> And again, no "probably" about it. Heliocentric works being placed on
>> >> the Index might have made some of the hardliners in the Vatican feel
>> >> self-satisfied but it had no impact whatsoever on the progress of
>> >> science.
>> >
>> >Sure, they tried to suppress heliocentrism, but didn't succeed very well. Then they eventually changed their minds and let it go.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
>> >
>> >I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.
>>
>> You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
>> here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
>> either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
>> *actually* impeded scientific progress.
>
>I'm not talking about "Science" with a big S, I'm talking about Copernicanism.

You said originally "The Church was not as effective in suppressing
astronomical science as it tried to be." I assumed that you were
applying your argument to astronomical scienceon a wider basis and not
just Copernicanism. That is what I have been addressing; if you are
now clarifying that you are only talking about Copernicanism, I'm
happy to let it go.

> Since that put the books supporting heliocentrism on the Index, its pretty hard to conclude anything other than that they were trying to suppress heliocentrism, They came around eventually. Bully for them.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Sure, they weren't killing scientists for their scientific beliefs, and they were far more vicious in suppressing heresy than in suppressing heliocentrism. But they still don't look particularly appealing.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And I don't particularly see this as a tough road; when people try to
>> >> present Galileo as evidence for the church being anti-science, I
>> >> simply ask them to name ahistorian who has studied the subject and
>> >> agrees with them. Nobody has come up with one yet, can you?
>> >>
>> >.......
>> >> >> >If the Church was not interested in suppressing heliocentrism, why were Galileo's and Copernicus' books on the Index?
>> >
>> >You never did answer this question.....
>>
>> *Some* people in the Church thought Galileo's ideas were heretical but
>> it was never mainstraem thinking. As Augustus De Morgan - no
>> particular friend of the Catholic Church - put it in *A Budget of
>> Paradoxes*(1872):
>>
>> "It is clear that the absurdity[of the case of Galileo] was the act of
>> the Italian inquisition, for the private and personal pleasure of the
>> pope — who knew that the course he took could not convict him as pope
>> — and not of the body which calls itself the Church."
>
>So what?

It was a particular group within the Church, not the main body of the
Church; I think that is an important point.

> They threatened him with torture and put his writings on the Index. Wiser heads eventually prevailed.
>
>I am not, repeat not, making the argument that others may have made that the Church was generically hostile to science. But they messed up badly about heliocentrism for a while.
>

Fair enough, but I think it is important to recognise that there were
a number of issues leading to the dreadful treatment of Galileo - some
of which he created himself - but I don't think it was driven by any
desire to suppress science in any way.

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 19 October 2017 14:55:04 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
> >
> >I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.
>
> You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
> here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
> either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
> *actually* impeded scientific progress.

May be it wasn't Church but explain away what it was. Our history shows
bit more than 1000 years gap of darkness of thought after lady Hypatia
was killed by Christians and until Leonardo and Copernicus dared to open
their mouths again. Arabia passed Europe in that gap and so father of
modern scientific method was Muslim, Ibn al-Haytham. It is not wonder
that we use Arabian numbers in out math.

[Martin Harran]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medieval-monasticism-preserver-western-civilization

[匽

So the dubious distinction of Dark Ages, properly speaking, belongs to
the sixth and seventh centuries (500 to 700 AD) which indeed were
centuries of meager fruits in education, literary output and other
cultural indicators. Those were the centuries of cultural
retrogression, the centuries of the Barbarian invasions in Italy and
elsewhere which effectively wrecked Roman civilization as we know it.
Those invasions destroyed cities, monasteries, libraries, schools,
institutions such as law, government, you name. It was in fact the
Church that stepped in the vacuum and maintained a modicum of order
within a crumbling civilization.

[匽

But there was one occupation of the monks which, perhaps more than any
other, helped in the preservation of Western Civilization: that of the
copying of ancient manuscripts. It begins in the sixth century when a
retired Roman senator by the name of Cassiodorus established a
monastery at Vivarium in southern Italy and endowed it with a fine
library wherein the copying of manuscripts took center stage.
Thereafter most monasteries were endowed with so called scriptoria as
part of their libraries: those were rooms where ancient literature was
transcribed by monks as part of their manual labor.

The other place where the survival of manuscripts had priority were
the schools associated with the medieval cathedrals. It was those
schools of medieval times which lay the groundwork for the first
University established at Bologna Italy in the eleventh century. The
Church had already made some outstanding original contributions in the
field of philosophy and theology (the various Church fathers among
whom Plautinus, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas, Don
Scotus) but she was also saving books and documents which resulted
indispensable later on for the preserving of Western civilization.

[匽

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 20 October 2017 00:45:02 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, 19 October 2017 14:55:04 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
> >> >
> >> >I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.
> >>
> >> You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
> >> here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
> >> either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
> >> *actually* impeded scientific progress.
> >
> >May be it wasn't Church but explain away what it was. Our history shows
> >bit more than 1000 years gap of darkness of thought after lady Hypatia
> >was killed by Christians and until Leonardo and Copernicus dared to open
> >their mouths again. Arabia passed Europe in that gap and so father of
> >modern scientific method was Muslim, Ibn al-Haytham. It is not wonder
> >that we use Arabian numbers in out math.
> >
>
> http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medieval-monasticism-preserver-western-civilization

Tell with your own words, don't copy-paste strange noise that does not
address your own questions.

So what it was? Evidence is the fruits of that period. We all see those.
Church was in control. There were resources to build the huge and creepy
Gothic cathedrals everywhere. Lot of those stand to this day. All
inventions that mattered anything were made in China and Arabia these
1000 years.

Was capability to think suppressed in Europe? By what? Are Europeans
just stupid? Did barbarian attacks 500-700 A.C. beat them senseless
for all the centuries? What it was? Your quotes did not answer that.

[Burkhard]

Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday, 20 October 2017 00:45:02 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, 19 October 2017 14:55:04 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>>>> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.
>>>>
>>>> You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
>>>> here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
>>>> either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
>>>> *actually* impeded scientific progress.
>>>
>>> May be it wasn't Church but explain away what it was. Our history shows
>>> bit more than 1000 years gap of darkness of thought after lady Hypatia
>>> was killed by Christians and until Leonardo and Copernicus dared to open
>>> their mouths again. Arabia passed Europe in that gap and so father of
>>> modern scientific method was Muslim, Ibn al-Haytham. It is not wonder
>>> that we use Arabian numbers in out math.
>>>
>>
>> http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medieval-monasticism-preserver-western-civilization
>
> Tell with your own words, don't copy-paste strange noise that does not
> address your own questions.
>
> So what it was? Evidence is the fruits of that period. We all see those.
> Church was in control.

Mhh, for most of that period, not really. We have the migration period
in between and the breakdown of central authority. For a couple of
centuries, nobody really was in control, which was sort of the problem.
It brought population decline, counterurbanisation and destruction of
the infrastructure needed for a research culture. This started to get
reversed only in th 8th century with the Carolingian renaissance (which
saw also a massive increase in literacy), i.e. when the church started
to be in control again, though there is also a commensurate rise in
state power.

And turning Hypatia into a proto-scientists murdered to suppress her
research is also hardly accurate - that was a myth created largely by
John Toland in the 18th century, where criticizing the church's action
in the past was the way to avoid persecution for expressing criticism of
the present - not meant as historical treatise. It was then amplified in
the 19th century by people like Soldan and Heppe. Soldan was by the
standards of his time a solid historian, but Heppe was a protestant
clergyman with an axe to grind and no solid work with the sources.

Hypatia was a neo-platonist, that is adherent to a mystic and hermetic
sect. Quite popular at the time with influential people in all
communities, Christian, Jewish and "pagan". Her friends, and also her
students were to achieve later important leadership positions also in
the Christian community (e.g. Synesius later became Bishop of Cyrene)
indicating that this was not an attack on the school. She jut got
caught in the power politics between the Jewish community and some
Christian allies on the one hand, a largely Christian group with some
Jewish allies on the other, and got herself assassinated in the process
- a fate not uncommon at the time on the "mean streets of Alexandria"
(to use Mike Flynn's quite appropriate term)

> There were resources to build the huge and creepy
> Gothic cathedrals everywhere. Lot of those stand to this day.

You are off by a few hundred years there, Gothic architecture only
starts in the late 12th century. And by that time science too had
started to flourish again, the first universities were created at the
exact same time, and we get thinkers like Eilmer of Malmesbury (the
first attempt at building an aircraft), Roger Bacon, William Heytesbury,
Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine,John Dumbleton, John Peckham, Richard of
Wallingfor and of course William of Occam (him of Occam's razor). You
get a very good idea in Edward Grant's "The Foundations of Modern
Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and
Intellectual Contexts".

All
> inventions that mattered anything were made in China and Arabia these
> 1000 years.
>
> Was capability to think suppressed in Europe? By what? Are Europeans
> just stupid? Did barbarian attacks 500-700 A.C. beat them senseless
> for all the centuries?

Largely yes. Same way in which the Mongol invasion was going to destroy
Islamic science in a way it never really recovered from. But it is also
simply not true that this disrupted a flourishing proto-science. If you
look at the scientific knowledge of that time, you'd find somewhat
depressingly that it too had hardly moved on over the previous 800 years
or so. With the exception of a few exceptional thinkers suhc as
Aristotle, the Greek were really not that much into empirical research,
and even in Aristotle, you find numerous "scientific" sounding
statements that he should have seen to be false just by getting out more.

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

wrote:

>On Friday, 20 October 2017 00:45:02 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:

>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 19 October 2017 14:55:04 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
>> >> >
>> >> >I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.
>> >>
>> >> You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
>> >> here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
>> >> either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
>> >> *actually* impeded scientific progress.
>> >
>> >May be it wasn't Church but explain away what it was. Our history shows
>> >bit more than 1000 years gap of darkness of thought after lady Hypatia
>> >was killed by Christians and until Leonardo and Copernicus dared to open
>> >their mouths again. Arabia passed Europe in that gap and so father of
>> >modern scientific method was Muslim, Ibn al-Haytham. It is not wonder
>> >that we use Arabian numbers in out math.
>> >
>>
>> http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medieval-monasticism-preserver-western-civilization
>
>Tell with your own words, don't copy-paste strange noise that does not
>address your own questions.

That's strange. When people make claims around here, they are
generally asked to cite supporting evidence. You provided no such
support for your somewhat extravagant claim about what happened over a
thousand year period; I cited a reputable learned author contradicting
what you claimed and you simply dismiss what he said as "noise".

Anyway, taking account of the fact that English is not your first
language and you might not actually grasp what that author is saying,
here it is the gist of it in my own words:

1) The "Dark Ages" that you seem to be extending to a thousand years,
did not last anything like that, at most it was two centuries (500 to
700 AD).

2) Far from the church suppressing knowledge during that period, the
monks of the church were directly responsible for preserving ancient
Greek, Roman and Eastern knowledge.

3) The scientists who made so much progress during the period
following your thousand year period generally received their education
in church founded schools and universities; Da Vinci was a bit of an
exception as he received very little formal education he was the
epitome of a natural prodigy.

4) The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to
the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of
ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment,
than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions

Sorry, I cheated, #4 aren't my words, they are those of J. L. Heilbron
in his book 'The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories'
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999).

Just some more noise, I guess.

>
>So what it was? Evidence is the fruits of that period. We all see those.
>Church was in control. There were resources to build the huge and creepy
>Gothic cathedrals everywhere. Lot of those stand to this day. All
>inventions that mattered anything were made in China and Arabia these
>1000 years.

Can you give any specific examples of inventions that occurred in
China and Arabia during that particular period? I'm no historian but
as I understand it, most Chinese and Arabian inventions came from
before that and were developed to new levels in Europe during the so
called "Dark Ages."

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT), 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

wrote:

>On Friday, 20 October 2017 00:45:02 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:

>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, 19 October 2017 14:55:04 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 04:55:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers
>> >> <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The Church tortures and kills many for their religious beliefs. It threatens Galileo with torture for his heliocentric conclusions. It puts heliocentric books on its Index, along with books containing the sort of heresies that got people tortured and killed. Now, who wants to step up and publish their latest findings on the moons of Jupiter?
>> >> >
>> >> >I'd say it's pretty hard to conclude that the Church's attitude had no effect *at all* on suppressing science. And if it had no effect, it wasn't for want of trying.
>> >>
>> >> You claim to take a scientific approach to things based on*evidence*so
>> >> here's a simple challenge for you - cite any historian who agrees
>> >> either that the Church *wanted* to suppress science or in any way
>> >> *actually* impeded scientific progress.
>> >
>> >May be it wasn't Church but explain away what it was. Our history shows
>> >bit more than 1000 years gap of darkness of thought after lady Hypatia
>> >was killed by Christians and until Leonardo and Copernicus dared to open
>> >their mouths again. Arabia passed Europe in that gap and so father of
>> >modern scientific method was Muslim, Ibn al-Haytham. It is not wonder
>> >that we use Arabian numbers in out math.
>> >
>>
>> http://www.metanexus.net/essay/medieval-monasticism-preserver-western-civilization
>
>Tell with your own words, don't copy-paste strange noise that does not
>address your own questions.

That's strange. When people make claims around here, they are
generally asked to cite supporting evidence. You provided no such
support for your somewhat extravagant claim about what happened over a
thousand year period; I cited a reputable learned author contradicting
what you claimed and you simply dismiss what he said as "noise".

Anyway, taking account of the fact that English is not your first
language and you might not actually grasp what that author is saying,
here it is the gist of it in my own words:

1) The "Dark Ages" that you seem to be extending to a thousand years,
did not last anything like that, at most it was two centuries (500 to
700 AD).

2) Far from the church suppressing knowledge during that period, the
monks of the church were directly responsible for preserving ancient

Greek Roman and Eastern knowledge.

3) The scientists who made so much progress during the period
following your thousand year period generally received their education
in church founded schools and universities; Da Vinci was a bit of an

exception as he received very little formal education, he was the

epitome of a natural prodigy.

4) The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to
the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of
ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment,
than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions

Sorry, I cheated, #4 aren't my words, they are those of J. L. Heilbron
in his book 'The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories'
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999).

Just some more noise, I guess.


>

>So what it was? Evidence is the fruits of that period. We all see those.
>Church was in control. There were resources to build the huge and creepy
>Gothic cathedrals everywhere. Lot of those stand to this day. All
>inventions that mattered anything were made in China and Arabia these
>1000 years.
>

Can you give any specific examples of inventions that occurred in
China and Arabia during that particular period? I'm no historian but
as I understand it, most Chinese and Arabian inventions came from
before that and were developed to new levels in Europe during the so
called "Dark Ages."

[Martin Harran]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 16:08:06 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>嘱 Tiib wrote:
>> On Friday, 20 October 2017 00:45:02 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:

>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), ? Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

David C. Lindberg summed it up rather neatly:

"The story of Hypatia's murder is one of the most gripping in the
entire history of science and religion. However, the traditional
interpretation of it is pure mythology." [1]

[1] Numbers, Ron, ed. 2009. Galileo Goes to Jail: and Other Myths
about Science and Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 22 October 2017 13:20:02 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 20 October 2017 00:45:02 UTC+3, Martin Harran wrote:

> >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:14:22 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>

What cite you request from me? Yes, my claim was that pause in list of
European astronomers did last lot longer than until 700 AD. Lets try
it third time: Hypatia ... pause ... Copernicus. What sort of
evidence and cites you expect anyone to give for a *screaming pause*?
Hint: It is not bad English that does not let me to cite a lack of
existence of works. Also empty claims that the pause lasted only to
700 AD do not fill it.

>
> 2) Far from the church suppressing knowledge during that period, the
> monks of the church were directly responsible for preserving ancient

> Greek, Roman and Eastern knowledge.

>
> 3) The scientists who made so much progress during the period
> following your thousand year period generally received their education
> in church founded schools and universities; Da Vinci was a bit of an

> exception as he received very little formal education he was the

> epitome of a natural prodigy.
>
> 4) The Roman Catholic Church gave more financial and social support to
> the study of astronomy for over six centuries, from the recovery of
> ancient learning during the late Middle Ages into the Enlightenment,
> than any other, and, probably, all other, institutions
>
> Sorry, I cheated, #4 aren't my words, they are those of J. L. Heilbron
> in his book 'The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories'
> (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999).
>
> Just some more noise, I guess.

No, it is empty of facts. Huge support and study leaves names and works.
Who were "the Catholic astronomers" from 700 to 1543 AD (when Copernicus
work was published)? What were their works?

>
> >
> >So what it was? Evidence is the fruits of that period. We all see those.
> >Church was in control. There were resources to build the huge and creepy
> >Gothic cathedrals everywhere. Lot of those stand to this day. All
> >inventions that mattered anything were made in China and Arabia these
> >1000 years.
>
> Can you give any specific examples of inventions that occurred in
> China and Arabia during that particular period? I'm no historian but
> as I understand it, most Chinese and Arabian inventions came from
> before that and were developed to new levels in Europe during the so
> called "Dark Ages."

Sure, but it was long time so the list is long. First they figured out
that executing everyone who can think is wasteful. Then they had
concept of algebra, they even had number zero! They invented fishing
reel and dry dock, with horses they used stirrups and horse collars
first, also they had oil wells, porcelain, mechanical clocks, sulfur
matches, gunpowder and firearms and so on, just name it, often centuries
before Europe.

To what "new levels" and when? Europe was constantly behind and
learning up to 1400 AC also after 1400 the bloody conflicts
of "Christians" against "Christians" and inhuman treatment of
thousands of "witches" and "heretics" continued on. Some were
with name (like Jeanne d'Arc). Most had just their "confession"
beastly tortured out of them and then they were burned on stake
or hanged, even their names are forgotten. That gloomy "God's work"
stopped actually only at beginning of 19th century because French
Revolution brought Church to senses.

One may ask what actually caused any progress after 1400 under ruling
of such spiritual emptiness? Need for trade and for handicraft was there. Artisans were clever and relatively independent and in 1440 German
goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg invented printing press. With next decades
it spread everywhere and so by 1500 tens of millions of volumes were
printed. Literacy started to matter. Non-Catholic information started
to spread. Thoughts of likes of Copernicus were published. Catholic
dusk started to dissolve.