Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 151 to 160 of 160
  1. #151
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683
    Quote Originally Posted by antichrist View Post
    Capa Fan, thanks for reminding me of my two most cherished books in my attic - A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom , John William Draper’s History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874). The RCC was even against the lightning conductors
    Trust you to love utterly discredited books like those. Historians have long had contempt for the ‘Draper–White thesis’ or ‘conflict thesis’. Even the leftist Wikipedia documents this. The RCC was not against lightning conductors, and never taught a flat earth.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 31-08-2018 at 01:01 PM.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  2. #152
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    Do you agree with O'Neill that Shapiro's line of questioning was highly dubious?
    No, but then why would I? O'Neill is an atheist like Harris. I agree with O'Neill's criticism of both in historical matters.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  3. #153
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,890
    Hi all participating in this discussion. I just spent an interesting hour or so skim reading this thread. It is of interest because I recently bought Alister McGrath's book, "Science & Religion: A New Introduction". This popular (as opposed to academic) book has a number of references to Galileo and the heliocentic debate, especially pages 21-24. I also have a DVD by Capa Fan on related subject matter!** Back in year 4 at Otago Uni I studied the history of science. I never (as yet anyway - tis may be rectified) had the time to read Grant, Hannam, O'Neil et al but maybe one day I will fit such reading in. As my old friend Captain Underpants would have said, carry on!

    ** Jono's DVD is called "The Christian Roots of Science". Great title and very interesting content. Even has a photo with me in it!!
    Last edited by Adamski; 31-08-2018 at 03:13 PM.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  4. #154
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    No, but then why would I? O'Neill is an atheist like Harris. I agree with O'Neill's criticism of both in historical matters.
    You appear to be quite fond of quoting them both.
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  5. #155
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    ... As my old friend Captain Underpants would have said, carry on!
    Not sure if you meant to imply it or not, but I'm fairly sure Captain Underpants is still alive, although mostly inactive here.

  6. #156
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,890
    Indeed so, Patrick! He's alive and kicking! I meant he would have said it if he happened to visit the thread. Probably not his subject matter.
    Last edited by Adamski; 01-09-2018 at 11:27 AM.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  7. #157
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,890
    Bought a new book from Koorong (popular history etc. again) which might contribute to this thread once I have read it. "The Lion Handbook of Science & Christianity". Very nicely produced.
    BTW I am home today as I am between work contracts. My next gig begins on Monday. I am a Data Architect but maybe you could also call me a Data Scientist!
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  8. #158
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    You appear to be quite fond of quoting them both.
    It's possible to respect two authors who disagree with each other, and who each disagree with me on some things.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  9. #159
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    Hi all participating in this discussion. I just spent an interesting hour or so skim reading this thread. It is of interest because I recently bought Alister McGrath's book, "Science & Religion: A New Introduction". This popular (as opposed to academic) book has a number of references to Galileo and the heliocentic debate, especially pages 21-24. I also have a DVD by Capa Fan on related subject matter!** Back in year 4 at Otago Uni I studied the history of science. I never (as yet anyway - tis may be rectified) had the time to read Grant, Hannam, O'Neil et al but maybe one day I will fit such reading in. As my old friend Captain Underpants would have said, carry on!
    Yes, I have benefited from reading Hannam and O'Neill, and also Peter Harrison. Just started Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts a few days ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    ** Jono's DVD is called "The Christian Roots of Science". Great title and very interesting content. Even has a photo with me in it!!
    Oh yes, so it does Thanks for the plug for this DVD.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  10. #160
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,683

    The gigantic stars problem for geokinetic theory, unsolved until long after Galileo

    Sometimes it's important to look more carefully at the losing side of an argument, and see that it's no a simple heroes vs villains, science vs religion conflict. In Galileo's time, unlike ours, the best science was not clearly geokinetic.

    The Popular Creation Story of Astronomy Is Wrong
    The old tale about science versus the church is wide of the mark
    BY CHRISTOPHER M. GRANEY, 17 MAY 2018

    People who have good vision and look up at the sky will see the stars as little round dots, with small but measurable apparent sizes. Astronomers dating all the way back to Ptolemy during the second century had determined that the more prominent of those star dots measure somewhere in the range of one-tenth to one-twentieth the diameter that the round moon appears to be. In On the New Star, Kepler said bright stars measure one-tenth the moon’s diameter, Sirius a bit more. The problem is, a star that appears one-tenth the moon’s diameter when seen in the sky would be one-tenth the moon’s true physical diameter only if it was the same distance away from us as the moon. But stars are more distant than the moon. Were that star then 10 times more distant than the moon, its true size would be the same as the moon—it would only appear one-tenth the moon’s size on account of greater distance. Were that star 100 times more distant, its true diameter would be 100 times that of the moon. Were it 1,000 times farther away than the moon, its true size would be 1,000 times larger.

    And what if that star, which appears to be one-tenth the diameter of the moon, were at the distance the Copernican theory required in order for there to be no detectable parallax? That star would be, Kepler said, as big as the orbit of Saturn. And every last star visible in the sky would be at least as big as the orbit of Earth. Even the smallest stars would be orders of magnitude larger than the sun. This may seem strange to us today, because we know now that stars come in many sizes, and while a very few are larger than Earth’s orbit (the star Betelgeuse in Orion being a prominent example), the vast majority are “red dwarfs” that are far outclassed by the sun. However, in Kepler’s time this was a simple matter of observation, measurement, and math—the ordinary stuff of science. An astronomer of that time who believed Copernicus, believed the measurement data, and believed math, simply had to believe that all the stars were huge. (More on where they went wrong, in a moment).

    The case for huge stars was so solid that the details regarding the measurements of them did not matter. Johann Georg Locher and his mentor Christoph Scheiner would neatly summarize the giant stars problem in their 1614 astronomy book Disquisitiones Mathematicae or Mathematical Disquisitions. They wrote that in the Copernican theory the Earth’s orbit is like a point within the universe of stars; but the stars, having measurable sizes, are larger than points; therefore, in a Copernican universe every star must be larger than Earth’s orbit, and of course vastly larger than the sun itself.

    Because of the giant stars, Locher and Scheiner rejected the Copernican theory, and backed Brahe’s [geoheliocentric hybrid] theory. That theory was compatible with the latest telescopic discoveries, such as the phases of Venus that showed it to circle the sun. In Brahe’s theory, the stars were not so far away—just past Saturn. An astronomer in Kepler’s time who believed Brahe, believed the measurement data, and believed math, did not have to believe that the stars were huge. (Brahe had calculated that they ranged in size between the larger planets and the sun.) Locher and Scheiner were not alone—for many astronomers, including Brahe himself who first raised the issue, the giant stars were just too much.

    The anti-Copernicans were unpersuaded. Locher and Scheiner noted that Copernicus’s “minions” did not deny that stars had to be giant in a Copernican universe. “Instead,” the two astronomers wrote, “they go on about how from this everyone may better perceive the majesty of the Creator,” an idea they called “laughable.” One anti-Copernican astronomer, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, wrote that calling in divine power to support a theory “cannot satisfy the more prudent men.” Another, Peter Crüger, regarding the size of stars, commented, “I do not understand how the Pythagorean or Copernican System of the Universe can survive.”

    Jeremiah Horrocks (1618–1641) observed the moon occulting the stars of the Pleiades and noted how the stars seemed to disappear instantly. Lunar occultations were a hint that the star disk was an optical illusion. In the 19th century, Astronomer Royal Sir George Airy worked out that the stellar disk was caused by diffraction. So geo-heliocentrists such as Tycho and Riccioli were actually relying on the diffraction pattern not the actual star size. But they had no way of knowing, given the knowledge available. Riccioli was even doing what Galileo asked: look through the telescope. Riccioli did just that, and went by what he saw.

    Unfortunately, the popular historiography of geokinetic vs geocentric astronomy, especially the 19th-century "conflict thesis" nonsense, caricatures this as enlightened scientists v backward religionists. The real history shows that it was largely science vs science, and the best science of Galileo's day was equivocal or even in favour of geocentrism (global earth of course). Geocentrism had good arguments that were not dealt with until much later.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Does God Exist?
    By Paul S in forum Religion and Science
    Replies: 5606
    Last Post: 02-03-2020, 09:20 PM
  2. Replies: 242
    Last Post: 08-03-2017, 10:16 PM
  3. Galileo fan club (Mr.G)
    By Sinister in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 27-11-2008, 04:11 PM
  4. picking your nose
    By chesslover in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-04-2004, 10:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •