Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
From what I have read the monasteries were the centers of learning in the Middle ages.I am surprised that Mendel has not been mentioned.He was an Augustian monk. Btw,what we mean by religious may have a different meaning at hat time.If I recall my philosophy,either Leibnitz or Spinoza came up with the idea of some kind of parallel co-eistence of the spiritual and material.I would assume,following that model,scientific persons could have a foot in science and the other food in he spiritual. As to thelogy,a Jesuit by the name of Theillard de Chadrin (The phenomena of man) was an archaeologist credited for discovering Peking man.He sorta had this unique bridge of religion and science striving toward the Omega point. Michaelomnicentric Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4956 or send a blank email to leave-4956-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I'm not sure Glieck's short book is the final say. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ (O) 229-333-5947/^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ (C) 229-630-0821 / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \ /\ \ //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - / \_ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4960 or send a blank email to leave-4960-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
On 16 September Mike Smith wrote: …the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. Leaving aside that Darwin was hardly among the first scientists, it is erroneous to state he was religious. On the contrary, he had ceased to believe in the tenets of Christianity by the early 1840s, and following the death of his beloved daughter Annie in 1850 he ceased to be a believer in any kind of conventional religious belief. He spelled out his position in maturity (1879) as follows: It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist an evolutionist… whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally ( more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html There have been recent attempts to claim he was *really* an atheist, but these depend on flawed evidence. For instance, Richard Dawkins writes: It is true that Darwin declined to call himself an atheist. But his motive, clearly expressed to the atheist intellectual Edward Aveling (incidentally the common-law husband of Karl Marx's daughter) was that Darwin didn't want to upset people. Atheism, in Darwin's view, was all well and good for the intelligentsia, but ordinary people were not yet ripe for atheism. So he called himself an agnostic, largely for diplomatic reasons. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3475 (scroll down) Dawkins here is evidently basing himself (using similar language) on a misleading passage in Desmond and Moore's *Darwin* in which they (characteristically) use truncated quotations and an omission of contrary evidence to claim that Darwin was in agreement with the free-thinker Edward Aveling that 'agnostic' was but 'atheist' writ respectable. (1991, pp 657; 736, n. 11) Desmond and Moore base this on Aveling's report in a pamphlet (The Religious Views of Charles Darwin, 1883) published a couple of years after a lunch he attended at Down House at which Darwin's son Francis was also present among the guests. Desmond and Moore write in an endnote that Frances confirms that Aveling gave quite fairly his impressions of my father's views, creating the impression that Francis agreed with Aveling's version. But they fail to note that Francis Darwin went on to say that readers of the pamphlet may be misled by Aveling's account into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr Aveling. [...] (1887, p. 317): http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.1viewtype=textpageseq=1 I think this illustrates something I have come to recognize forcefully in recent years (not least in Desmond and Moore's co-authored books on Darwin): Don't assume that because an author supplies references for a particular assertion that they necessarily confirm that assertion. Very few people are going to take the trouble to check the actual reference, so instances like the above are likely to go undetected (as we see from Dawkins' recycling of the Aveling story). Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- From: Michael Smith tipsl...@gmail.com Subject:Re: Galileo Was Wrong? Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:02:51 -0500 Well, I didn't mean anything very deep. Just that the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. They saw (like Aquinus) that an orderly, rational, lawful universe was a reflection of those qualities of its creator. And studying nature was a way of glorifying God and coming to know the mind of God more fully (by discovering the divine order) since his creation reflected at least some of his qualities even if only on a lower level. So science was the result of a worked out theology. One might even call science practical theology since these men believed their investigative activities were glorifying God through the application of one of his crowning gifts: reason. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4917 or send a blank email to leave-4917-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
It sounds like Mike Smith's comments contain an idea common in the study of religion, the separation of religion spirituality, and while it is a stretch to link the former to science, the latter is easily done. When spirituality is measured (and factor analyzed) a sense of transcendence is one of its key components, a deep sense of connectedness to something beyond the self, displayed by Kepler et al. Some connect it to god/religion, others don't. Spirituality appears (based on twin research) to be heritable, religious practice per se is more tied to culture and upbringing. For those curious about measuring such things, there is Cloninger's Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) and Ralph Piedmont's ASPIRES scale: Piedmont, R.L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 985-1013. Piedmont, R.L. (2007). Cross-cultural generalizability of the spiritual transcendence scale to the Philippines: Spirituality as a human universal. Mental Health Religion Culture. 10(2), 89-107. OK, that's my shameless plug for an under-appreciated and neglected universal of human personality. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: Allen Esterson allenester...@compuserve.com To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 4:37:16 AM Subject: Re:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong? On 16 September Mike Smith wrote: …the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. Leaving aside that Darwin was hardly among the first scientists, it is erroneous to state he was religious. On the contrary, he had ceased to believe in the tenets of Christianity by the early 1840s, and following the death of his beloved daughter Annie in 1850 he ceased to be a believer in any kind of conventional religious belief. He spelled out his position in maturity (1879) as follows: It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist an evolutionist… whether a man deserves to be called a theist depends on the definition of the term: which is much too large a subject for a note. In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally ( more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-12041.html There have been recent attempts to claim he was *really* an atheist, but these depend on flawed evidence. For instance, Richard Dawkins writes: It is true that Darwin declined to call himself an atheist. But his motive, clearly expressed to the atheist intellectual Edward Aveling (incidentally the common-law husband of Karl Marx's daughter) was that Darwin didn't want to upset people. Atheism, in Darwin's view, was all well and good for the intelligentsia, but ordinary people were not yet ripe for atheism. So he called himself an agnostic, largely for diplomatic reasons. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3475 (scroll down) Dawkins here is evidently basing himself (using similar language) on a misleading passage in Desmond and Moore's *Darwin* in which they (characteristically) use truncated quotations and an omission of contrary evidence to claim that Darwin was in agreement with the free-thinker Edward Aveling that 'agnostic' was but 'atheist' writ respectable. (1991, pp 657; 736, n. 11) Desmond and Moore base this on Aveling's report in a pamphlet (The Religious Views of Charles Darwin, 1883) published a couple of years after a lunch he attended at Down House at which Darwin's son Francis was also present among the guests. Desmond and Moore write in an endnote that Frances confirms that Aveling gave quite fairly his impressions of my father's views, creating the impression that Francis agreed with Aveling's version. But they fail to note that Francis Darwin went on to say that readers of the pamphlet may be misled by Aveling's account into seeing more resemblance than really existed between the positions of my father and Dr Aveling. [...] (1887, p. 317): http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.1viewtype=textpageseq=1 I think this illustrates something I have come to recognize forcefully in recent years (not least in Desmond and Moore's co-authored books on Darwin): Don't assume that because an author supplies references for a particular assertion that they necessarily confirm that assertion. Very few people are going to take the trouble to check the actual reference, so instances like the above are likely to go undetected (as we see from Dawkins' recycling of the Aveling story). Allen Esterson
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
John Kulig wrote: But in general, Christian religions have not been exactly at the forefront of science. Though the Catholic church is ultimately accepting of scientific advances - sooner or later - example being the acceptance of Darwinian theory as established science and more than just a theory, and (if I remember) that creationist science is junk science because of the lack of falsifiability (I was impressed with that one!). Yet the Pope, who is presently taking the first state visit to England after about 500 years of separation between the Anglican and Catholic church, still, using anti-science explanations about some things, still says (along with a significant portion of tea-baggers) that the use of condoms spreads aids. What kind of science is that? . Robert W. Wildblood, PhD Adjunct Psychology Faculty Germanna Community College drb...@rcn.com --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4921 or send a blank email to leave-4921-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Bob: I'm not going to defend Pope Benedict, but let me elaborate. In 1996 address to Pontifical Academy of Sciences, JohnPaul II: ... new knowledge has lead to the recognition of the [Darwinian] theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. Further: A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it, a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether it can be falsified. It is continually tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the later, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought. On the condom issue, sounds like just a claim that is not factual. The customary Catholic position is that technology is ok if it enhances life (e.g. eyeglasses are ok) but condoms do not. IF I were to give advice to the Pope (ha!) I would present this as a VALUE, period, and not try to defend with data. As in this is what we value, we are a private club, end of story .. though I doubt they would take that advice! == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: Dr. Bob Wildblood drb...@rcn.com To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 7:22:57 AM Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? John Kulig wrote: But in general, Christian religions have not been exactly at the forefront of science. Though the Catholic church is ultimately accepting of scientific advances - sooner or later - example being the acceptance of Darwinian theory as established science and more than just a theory, and (if I remember) that creationist science is junk science because of the lack of falsifiability (I was impressed with that one!). Yet the Pope, who is presently taking the first state visit to England after about 500 years of separation between the Anglican and Catholic church, still, using anti-science explanations about some things, still says (along with a significant portion of tea-baggers) that the use of condoms spreads aids. What kind of science is that? . Robert W. Wildblood, PhD Adjunct Psychology Faculty Germanna Community College drb...@rcn.com --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl=tipso=4921 or send a blank email to leave-4921-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4923 or send a blank email to leave-4923-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
On Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:02:51 -0500, Michael Smith wrote: Well, I didn't mean anything very deep. Just that the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. They saw (like Aquinus) that an orderly, rational, lawful universe was a reflection of those qualities of its creator. And studying nature was a way of glorifying God and coming to know the mind of God more fully (by discovering the divine order) since his creation reflected at least some of his qualities even if only on a lower level. So science was the result of a worked out theology. One might even call science practical theology since these men believed their investigative activities were glorifying God through the application of one of his crowning gifts: reason. One problem with shallow explanations like that provided by Prof. Smith is that it fails to recognize that others may have made similar sorts of claims but (a) as a negative indictment of using Catholicism/Christianity as a basis for science and (b) there are arguments that such a basis is inferior to that provided by other religions. Consider the curious case of the mathematician C. K. Raju. I assume that most people are unfamiliar with Raju (Chris Green should have some familiarity with him and his opinions since we are both on a mailing list where Raju occasionally posts -- Chris might be able to provide more information about Raju) and I suggest that one take a look at his Wikipedia entry for background on him though I would warn that the yada-yada/standard disclaimers should be taken very seriously here; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._Raju Perhaps Allen Esterson can comment on one of Raju's claims such as the following; quoting from the Wikipedia entry: |Raju built on E.T. Whittaker's beliefs that Albert Einstein's theories |of special and general relativity built on the earlier work of Henri Poincaré. |Raju claims that they were remarkably similar, and every aspect of |special relativity was published by Poincaré in papers between 1898 |and 1905. Raju goes further, saying that Einstein made a mistake that |much of physics has been built on;[8] he proposes corrections to the |equations, [9] and says that physics needs to go through a major |reformulation.[10] It is my understanding the Raju's opinion is very much a minority position and that most scientists and historians of science may find it questionable. But I am not a physicist and cannot assess the merits of Raju's argument. Of relevance to Prof. Smith's post is the following cryptic quote from the Wilipedia entry: |Through his research, Raju has claimed that the philosophies that |underlie subjects like time[11] and mathematics[12] are rooted in the |theocratic needs of the Roman Catholic Church.[13] Raju has his own website and blog where he expands on his positions (Amazon sells two of his books). A blog entry that goes more into the issue of the Christianity's influence in the development of Western Science is available here where he responds to a reviewer's criticisms of one of his books: http://drckraju.blogspot.com/2009/03/yellow-learned-journalism.html Quoting from his blog: |Perhaps the reviewer wanted to suppress my point that Newton's |understanding of the calculus was influenced by his religious belief |that mathematics is perfect, and that his physics failed for that very |reason. (Newton thought, like his contemporaries, that the Bible is |the word of God and the world is the work of God written in the |language of mathematics which must be perfect.) We speak of |Newton's laws and not hypotheses, because his contemporaries |accepted his claim that the laws of God had been revealed to him. |Therefore, to be able to use the time derivative in his second law, |Newton needed to perfect the calculus. He hence made time |metaphysical, in his Principia, and his philosophical error is shown |by the way his physics failed (philosophically) and had to be replaced |by the theory of relativity based on a new understanding of time. | |The point is: Newton's religious beliefs influenced both his mathematics |and physics, and led to errors in them. We must recall that the impact |of Newton's religious beliefs on this mathematics and physics could |not be assessed to date just because Western historians have dishonestly |suppressed Newton's real religious views and his 50 years of scholarship |leading to his 8-volume History of the Church. (He had documented the |changes in Christian doctrine and the Bible after the Nicene council.) |My book explains how the early Western philosophy of mathematics |was not only explicitly religious, but it agreed with pre-Nicene Christianity. |This early (Platonic-Neoplatonic) philosophy of mathematics was |transformed during the Crusades, using concoctions like Euclid (for |which see below). It was this post-Crusade theology that led to Newton's |erroneous
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
As an historian, I'll attest that Michael Smith is right. Some of you are showing your anti-religion bias. Newton, for example, felt that his greatest work was not the Mathamatica Principia, but his commentary on the Bible. So, if you think Michael's explanation is shallow, for starters, I would send you to Majorie Nicolson, Breaking the Circle and Moutain Gloom, Mountain Glory, Alexandre Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, and Arthur Koestler, Sleepwalkers. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ (O) 229-333-5947/^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ (C) 229-630-0821 / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \ /\ \ //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - / \_ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4929 or send a blank email to leave-4929-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Was Thomas Aquinas deistic or christian? Didn't he write a PRNCIPA? Michael --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4931 or send a blank email to leave-4931-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
There is no such term as deistic in the Middle Ages. That belief is one of many outgrowth of the Reformation. Aquinaes, Dominican, was as Christian as they come. In a shallow explanation, he felt that to merely say, I believe wasn't a sufficient argument against the Islamic Moors, especially Avereoiam or the recently split off Eastern Orthodox. So, using the newly discovered Aristotelian texts, he used logic and in his Summa Theologica came up with ten proofs for the existence of God. It got him into hot water with the Christian authorities who came very close to excommunicating him because of his Aristotelianism that many thought was attacking the purity of the Christian faith, that is, asserting said that Man was not totally evil and solely dependent on divine revelation through the Church but was capable of using his mind to reach God and that truth could be known through reason.. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ (O) 229-333-5947/^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ (C) 229-630-0821 / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \ /\ \ //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - / \_ On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:51 AM, michael sylvester wrote: Was Thomas Aquinas deistic or christian? Didn't he write a PRNCIPA? Michael --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: lschm...@valdosta.edumailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440n=Tl=tipso=4931 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4931-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-4931-13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4934 or send a blank email to leave-4934-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I'm not showing an anti-religion bias at all. The fact that Newton felt his greatest work was his commentary on the Bible in no wise shows that thoughtful theologians are responsible for the development of science -- it merely shows that Newton was religious (he was also, btw, something of an occultist). The original contention was that thoughtful theologians were responsible for modern science, not that the collection of people who invented science were religious. I don't doubt that they were. Galileo, Brahe, Bacon, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton: all of them were religious, but they weren't theologians. Reflection on the world and the human condition led to the development of science, not reflection on the existence or characteristics of gods -- which is what theologians do. Reed Gleick or Michael White on Newton. His Christianity didn't make him a scientist, and his commentary on the Bible didn't make him a theologian. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- From: Louis E. Schmier [mailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:26 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? As an historian, I'll attest that Michael Smith is right. Some of you are showing your anti-religion bias. Newton, for example, felt that his greatest work was not the Mathamatica Principia, but his commentary on the Bible. So, if you think Michael's explanation is shallow, for starters, I would send you to Majorie Nicolson, Breaking the Circle and Moutain Gloom, Mountain Glory, Alexandre Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, and Arthur Koestler, Sleepwalkers. Make it a good day -Louis- Louis Schmier http://www.therandomthoughts.edublogs.org Department of Historyhttp://www.therandomthoughts.com Valdosta State University Valdosta, Georgia 31698 /\ /\ /\ /\ /\ (O) 229-333-5947/^\\/ \/ \ /\/\__ / \ / \ (C) 229-630-0821 / \/ \_ \/ / \/ /\/ / \ /\ \ //\/\/ /\\__/__/_/\_\/ \_/__\ \ /\If you want to climb mountains,\ /\ _ / \don't practice on mole hills - / \_ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: marc.car...@bakeru.edumailto:marc.car...@bakeru.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c90e1n=Tl=tipso=4929 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4929-13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c9...@fsulist.frostburg.edumailto:leave-4929-13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4936 or send a blank email to leave-4936-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
summary of the works of Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincaré. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org - RE:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Mike Palij Fri, 17 Sep 2010 06:31:30 -0700 On Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:02:51 -0500, Michael Smith wrote: Well, I didn't mean anything very deep. Just that the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. They saw (like Aquinus) that an orderly, rational, lawful universe was a reflection of those qualities of its creator. And studying nature was a way of glorifying God and coming to know the mind of God more fully (by discovering the divine order) since his creation reflected at least some of his qualities even if only on a lower level. So science was the result of a worked out theology. One might even call science practical theology since these men believed their investigative activities were glorifying God through the application of one of his crowning gifts: reason. One problem with shallow explanations like that provided by Prof. Smith is that it fails to recognize that others may have made similar sorts of claims but (a) as a negative indictment of using Catholicism/Christianity as a basis for science and (b) there are arguments that such a basis is inferior to that provided by other religions. Consider the curious case of the mathematician C. K. Raju. I assume that most people are unfamiliar with Raju (Chris Green should have some familiarity with him and his opinions since we are both on a mailing list where Raju occasionally posts -- Chris might be able to provide more information about Raju) and I suggest that one take a look at his Wikipedia entry for background on him though I would warn that the yada-yada/standard disclaimers should be taken very seriously here; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._Raju Perhaps Allen Esterson can comment on one of Raju's claims such as the following; quoting from the Wikipedia entry: |Raju built on E.T. Whittaker's beliefs that Albert Einstein's theories |of special and general relativity built on the earlier work of Henri Poincaré. |Raju claims that they were remarkably similar, and every aspect of |special relativity was published by Poincaré in papers between 1898 |and 1905. Raju goes further, saying that Einstein made a mistake that |much of physics has been built on;[8] he proposes corrections to the |equations, [9] and says that physics needs to go through a major |reformulation.[10] It is my understanding the Raju's opinion is very much a minority position and that most scientists and historians of science may find it questionable. But I am not a physicist and cannot assess the merits of Raju's argument. Of relevance to Prof. Smith's post is the following cryptic quote from the Wilipedia entry: |Through his research, Raju has claimed that the philosophies that |underlie subjects like time[11] and mathematics[12] are rooted in the |theocratic needs of the Roman Catholic Church.[13] Raju has his own website and blog where he expands on his positions (Amazon sells two of his books). A blog entry that goes more into the issue of the Christianity's influence in the development of Western Science is available here where he responds to a reviewer's criticisms of one of his books: http://drckraju.blogspot.com/2009/03/yellow-learned-journalism.html Quoting from his blog: |Perhaps the reviewer wanted to suppress my point that Newton's |understanding of the calculus was influenced by his religious belief |that mathematics is perfect, and that his physics failed for that very |reason. (Newton thought, like his contemporaries, that the Bible is |the word of God and the world is the work of God written in the |language of mathematics which must be perfect.) We speak of |Newton's laws and not hypotheses, because his contemporaries |accepted his claim that the laws of God had been revealed to him. |Therefore, to be able to use the time derivative in his second law, |Newton needed to perfect the calculus. He hence made time |metaphysical, in his Principia, and his philosophical error is shown |by the way his physics failed (philosophically) and had to be replaced |by the theory of relativity based on a new understanding of time. | |The point is: Newton's religious beliefs influenced both his mathematics |and physics, and led to errors in them. We must recall that the impact |of Newton's religious beliefs on this mathematics and physics could |not be assessed to date just because Western historians have dishonestly |suppressed Newton's real religious views and his 50 years of scholarship |leading to his 8-volume History of the Church. (He had documented the |changes in Christian doctrine and the Bible after the Nicene council.) |My book explains how the early Western philosophy of mathematics |was not only explicitly
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
An interesting point made by Gleick: When Newton said 'I do not make an hypothesis' )or something to that effect -- my Latin is a bit rusty ;-) he was not (as sometimes said) rejecting the use of hypotheses in general in science. In fact, he was talking in a specific context. The best explanation that he could think of for the laws of motion was the action of a deity. Since he knew that this was not an acceptable SCIENTIFIC explanation, he basically said 'I'm not going there' -- rather than accepting a nonscientific hypothesis, he would hold judgement until an acceptable scientific one became available. He was very careful to keep his science and religion separate. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato paul.bran...@mnsu.edu On Sep 17, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Marc Carter wrote: I'm not showing an anti-religion bias at all. The fact that Newton felt his greatest work was his commentary on the Bible in no wise shows that thoughtful theologians are responsible for the development of science -- it merely shows that Newton was religious (he was also, btw, something of an occultist). The original contention was that thoughtful theologians were responsible for modern science, not that the collection of people who invented science were religious. I don't doubt that they were. Galileo, Brahe, Bacon, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton: all of them were religious, but they weren't theologians. Reflection on the world and the human condition led to the development of science, not reflection on the existence or characteristics of gods -- which is what theologians do. Read Gleick or Michael White on Newton. His Christianity didn't make him a scientist, and his commentary on the Bible didn't make him a theologian. From: Louis E. Schmier [mailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:26 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? As an historian, I'll attest that Michael Smith is right. Some of you are showing your anti-religion bias. Newton, for example, felt that his greatest work was not the Mathamatica Principia, but his commentary on the Bible. So, if you think Michael's explanation is shallow, for starters, I would send you to Majorie Nicolson, Breaking the Circle and Moutain Gloom, Mountain Glory, Alexandre Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, and Arthur Koestler, Sleepwalkers. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4939 or send a blank email to leave-4939-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Hi Paul- I believe that the phrase you're looking for is, Hypothesis non fungo. You are correct in assuming that he was not rejecting hypotheses in general, but merely admitting that he had no clue as to the mechanisms underlying gravity. -Don. - Original Message - From: Paul Brandon paul.bran...@mnsu.edu Date: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:51 am Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu An interesting point made by Gleick: When Newton said 'I do not make an hypothesis' )or something to that effect -- my Latin is a bit rusty ;-) he was not (as sometimes said) rejecting the use of hypotheses in general in science. In fact, he was talking in a specific context. The best explanation that he could think of for the laws of motion was the action of a deity. Since he knew that this was not an acceptable SCIENTIFIC explanation, he basically said 'I'm not going there' -- rather than accepting a nonscientific hypothesis, he would hold judgement until an acceptable scientific one became available. He was very careful to keep his science and religion separate. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato paul.bran...@mnsu.edu On Sep 17, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Marc Carter wrote: I'm not showing an anti-religion bias at all. The fact that Newton felt his greatest work was his commentary on the Bible in no wise shows that thoughtful theologians are responsible for the development of science -- it merely shows that Newton was religious (he was also, btw, something of an occultist). The original contention was that thoughtful theologians were responsible for modern science, not that the collection of people who invented science were religious. I don't doubt that they were. Galileo, Brahe, Bacon, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton: all of them were religious, but they weren't theologians. Reflection on the world and the human condition led to the development of science, not reflection on the existence or characteristics of gods -- which is what theologians do. Read Gleick or Michael White on Newton. His Christianity didn't make him a scientist, and his commentary on the Bible didn't make him a theologian. From: Louis E. Schmier [mailto:lschm...@valdosta.edu] Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:26 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? As an historian, I'll attest that Michael Smith is right. Some of you are showing your anti-religion bias. Newton, for example, felt that his greatest work was not the Mathamatica Principia, but his commentary on the Bible. So, if you think Michael's explanation is shallow, for starters, I would send you to Majorie Nicolson, Breaking the Circle and Moutain Gloom, Mountain Glory, Alexandre Koyre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe, and Arthur Koestler, Sleepwalkers. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: dap...@shaw.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13157.966b795bc7f3ccb35e3da08aebe98f18n=Tl=tipso=4939or send a blank email to leave-4939-13157.966b795bc7f3ccb35e3da08aebe98...@fsulist.frostburg.edu Don Allen Retired professor Langara College --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4941 or send a blank email to leave-4941-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Well...there's way too much there to comment on. But a couple of comments anyway: Some thoughts about Marc Carter's post. Marc said that my original contention was that: thoughtful theologians were responsible for modern science, not that the collection of people who invented science were religious. I may have been unintentionally misleading, but my actual contention was much more the latter: that the people involved with the development of science thought that their explorations using God's highest gift of reason was glorifying God. That is, their science was religiously motivated--not that they were professional theologians. In the sense that Christianity has a specific theology (that God created a lawful universe accessible to reason, etc. etc.) these men were motivated to create their science to better understand the Christian God. Reflection on the world and the human condition led to the development of science, not reflection on the existence or characteristics of gods. This is a categorical statement about which I disagree. It was exactly the reflection on the characteristics of the Christian God as spelled out in Christian theology that both inspired and allowed these men to embark on the scientific enterprise. Read Gleick or Michael White on Newton. His Christianity didn't make him a scientist, and his commentary on the Bible didn't make him a theologian. I think it is pretty clear that Newton was a very religious man and that he considered himself in the service of God and uncovering the knowledge of God as he undertook his scientific activities. I would assume that Gleick and White simply are anti-religious. True to form Mike Palij managed to come up with some obscure individual in order to further complicate the issue (with standard disclaimers also), prefaced by: One problem with shallow explanations like that provided by Prof. Smith is that it fails to recognize that others may have made similar sorts of claims Actually, I don't think that's a problem at all and Mike's post seems rather like a non-sequitur. and finally, Allen commented: Leaving aside that Darwin was hardly among the first scientists, it is erroneous to state he was religious. On the contrary, he had ceased to believe in the tenets of Christianity by the early 1840s, and following the death of his beloved daughter Annie in 1850 he ceased to be a believer in any kind of conventional religious belief. Yes, I know that Darwin isn't among the first scientists. I included Darwin because he is the object of almost orgasmic devotion by at least some very vocal atheists (and probably their followers)--their god one might say--and because he also was religious: at least in the beginning, as shown by your post that he had ceased to believe. So then, Darwin too at least started out religious and his motivation for engaging in the study of the natural world could well have been a religious one. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4942 or send a blank email to leave-4942-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I sometimes engage in a speculative exercise with my students - imagining what might have happened had the Dark Ages not intervened between the Greek Miracle and the Renaissance (of course, it wouldn't have really been a rebirth). Seriously - where would science and technology be today had progress been more continuous? I am thinking Star Trek ;) At 04:25 PM 9/15/2010, you wrote: Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edumailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Well, there are not many historians on tips, so I'm probably safe speculating about the Greek miracle. Since IQ cannot change dramatically over the course of a few thousand years, I assume the amount of raw brain power available in a given time/place is relatively constant. My guess is that the Greek miracle hinged on(1) wealth. these were slave-owners(2) climate. they were free to mingle and gather and argue for lengthy periods of the year sans hats and mittens in (3) cities. Also, maybe the rise of academies/colleges permits a continuity of thought between generations, as well as collection (oral as well as written), or record, of the intellectual debates of the time. I like to think smart people have argued pretty effectively for thousands of years around campfires, but the arguments need to be preserved and passed on to posterity. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: Jim Dougan jdou...@iwu.edu To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:29:12 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? I sometimes engage in a speculative exercise with my students - imagining what might have happened had the Dark Ages not intervened between the Greek Miracle and the Renaissance (of course, it wouldn't have really been a rebirth). Seriously - where would science and technology be today had progress been more continuous? I am thinking Star Trek ;) At 04:25 PM 9/15/2010, you wrote: Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edumailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I'm thinking that the dark ages weren't so dark and science is a natural outgrowth of thoughtful Christian theology. So, without the dark ages and Christian theology, science wouldn't be anywhere. --Mike On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Jim Dougan jdou...@iwu.edu wrote: I sometimes engage in a speculative exercise with my students - imagining what might have happened had the Dark Ages not intervened between the Greek Miracle and the Renaissance (of course, it wouldn't have really been a rebirth). Seriously - where would science and technology be today had progress been more continuous? I am thinking Star Trek ;) At 04:25 PM 9/15/2010, you wrote: Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edumailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I agree that the dark ages weren't as dark as we tend to think, but I'm not sure that thoughtful Christian theology had a great deal to do with the development of science. Theology studies the nature of God (a non-natural entity or entities) via revealed truth (not by observation). Although one or two of St. Thomas's arguments might have used nature to justify belief in the existence of god, I don't see how it leads to science (as we know it now). I can see Humanism (a shift in focus to the temporal human condition), Copernicus, Brahe's excellent observations, Bacon's development of induction, Kepler's frustrations, Galileo's application of math to things in the world (and his observations), and Newton's invention of gravity as key points in the development of modern science. Newton is really the first modern scientist. I'm not sure where I see the thoughtful theology part. Where do you see it? (I'm not being argumentative; I'd like to know things better.) m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: Michael Smith [mailto:tipsl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:08 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? I'm thinking that the dark ages weren't so dark and science is a natural outgrowth of thoughtful Christian theology. So, without the dark ages and Christian theology, science wouldn't be anywhere. --Mike The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4901 or send a blank email to leave-4901-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Well, I didn't mean anything very deep. Just that the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. They saw (like Aquinus) that an orderly, rational, lawful universe was a reflection of those qualities of its creator. And studying nature was a way of glorifying God and coming to know the mind of God more fully (by discovering the divine order) since his creation reflected at least some of his qualities even if only on a lower level. So science was the result of a worked out theology. One might even call science practical theology since these men believed their investigative activities were glorifying God through the application of one of his crowning gifts: reason. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4911 or send a blank email to leave-4911-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
John Serafin wrote: Personal aside...ignore if not interested. My grandparents all emigrated from Poland to the US. They all ended up in an area just west of Detroit. My dad's parents lived on a street that happened to go by the name of Kopernik. As a kid, I had no idea the significance of that name, but I eventually figured it out. Another personal aside, to be completely ignored: In the dim and distant past when I was at school one of our teachers deliberately mispronounced the name as copper knickers, which of course we found hilarious. Allen E. From: Serafin, John john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu Subject:Re: Galileo Was Wrong? Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:24:45 -0400 Ha! One of the things I have to love about TIPS is that even when I post something completely tongue-in-cheek, I can count on interesting and informative replies. Thanks, John K! I'll just add that Brahe Kepler did their thing after Copernicus, so I'll still attribute the idea to Copernicus. Personal aside...ignore if not interested. My grandparents all emigrated from Poland to the US. They all ended up in an area just west of Detroit. My dad's parents lived on a street that happened to go by the name of Kopernik. As a kid, I had no idea the significance of that name, but I eventually figured it out. John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4823 or send a blank email to leave-4823-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4826 or send a blank email to leave-4826-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0dan=Tl=tipso=4826 or send a blank email to leave-4826-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4860 or send a blank email to leave-4860-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: chri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd0 dan=Tl=tipso=4826 or send a blank email to leave-4826-13132.a868d710aa4ef67a68807ce4fe8bd...@fsulist.frostburg.ed u --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: marc.car...@bakeru.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72 a2d17c90e1n=Tl=tipso=4860 or send
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Sounds like the Church is reversing itself, not just standing motionless. Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato paul.bran...@mnsu.edu On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:04 PM, Christopher D. Green wrote: Creationism was only the beginning... :-( Announcement for Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2010/09/geocentrism_was_galileo_wrong/conference.jpeg Chris --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4802 or send a blank email to leave-4802-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Seriously - this is a joke, right? At 01:04 PM 9/14/2010, you wrote: Creationism was only the beginning... :-( Announcement for Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2010/09/geocentrism_was_galileo_wrong/conference.jpeghttp://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2010/09/geocentrism_was_galileo_wrong/conference.jpeg Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: mailto:jdou...@iwu.edujdou...@iwu.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13263.f23077b60542b92033df4d2e208706den=Tl=tipso=4801http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13263.f23077b60542b92033df4d2e208706den=Tl=tipso=4801 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to mailto:leave-4801-13263.f23077b60542b92033df4d2e20870...@fsulist.frostburg.eduleave-4801-13263.f23077b60542b92033df4d2e20870...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4803 or send a blank email to leave-4803-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Why stop at geocentrism? Why not go whole hog and become a Flat-earther? It seems so half-hearted to be a geocentrist. Paul C Bernhardt Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD, USA pcbernhardt[at]frostburg[d0t]edu On Sep 14, 2010, at 2:04 PM, Christopher D. Green wrote: Creationism was only the beginning... :-( Announcement for Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2010/09/geocentrism_was_galileo_wrong/conference.jpeg Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: pcbernha...@frostburg.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263003n=Tl=tipso=4801 (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) or send a blank email to leave-4801-13441.4e79e96ebb5671bdb50111f18f263...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4804 or send a blank email to leave-4804-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Note that the first author on the book that Marc Carter refers to is Robert Sungenis who is also the first speaker listed on the ad that Chris Green linked to. There is a Wikipedia entry on him (yada-yada) which provide some background information but does not seem to explain much; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis I suspect that Sungenis' bishop is not happy about his use of the word Catholic in advertising the conference. There is a website that seems to be associated with Sungenis' position but several attempts to reach it only produced a bandwidth exceeded error (i.e., too many people trying to access the site). You might have more luck: http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:35:40 -0700, Marc Carter wrote: Umm, I don't think so: http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1284489296sr=1-1 But I wish it were... -Original Message- On Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:24 PM, Jim Dougan wrote: Seriously - this is a joke, right? At 01:04 PM 9/14/2010, Chris Green wrote: Creationism was only the beginning... :-( Announcement for Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4809 or send a blank email to leave-4809-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Mike- There's not much doubt you are correct about his bishop! From the Wikipedia site on Sungenis: He also directed him to stop using the word Catholic in his organization's name.[] Sungenis has stated that he will only comply with Bishop Rhoades' directive to stop writing about Jews and Judaism if he is forced to do so under the aegis of a canonical trial.[] I do remember that he is of interest to the Southern Poverty Law Center for his anti-Semitism. He claims to be anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. (Don't think *too long* about that one!). So I think we don't need to fear the Catholic Church reversing it's position on Galileo any time soon. :) As to whether this is the next step after creationism, I don't know what to think. I'd like to say this appears to be a nut case with a few zealots interested in following. On the other hand that is exactly what I thought about creationism. Tim _ Timothy O. Shearon, PhD Professor of Psychology The College of Idaho 2112 Cleveland Blvd Caldwell, ID 83605 teaching: Bio and neuropsychology, general, psychopharmacology tshea...@collegeofidaho.edu -Original Message- From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:01 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Note that the first author on the book that Marc Carter refers to is Robert Sungenis who is also the first speaker listed on the ad that Chris Green linked to. There is a Wikipedia entry on him (yada-yada) which provide some background information but does not seem to explain much; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis I suspect that Sungenis' bishop is not happy about his use of the word Catholic in advertising the conference. There is a website that seems to be associated with Sungenis' position but several attempts to reach it only produced a bandwidth exceeded error (i.e., too many people trying to access the site). You might have more luck: http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 11:35:40 -0700, Marc Carter wrote: Umm, I don't think so: http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1284489296sr=1-1 But I wish it were... -Original Message- On Tuesday, September 14, 2010 1:24 PM, Jim Dougan wrote: Seriously - this is a joke, right? At 01:04 PM 9/14/2010, Chris Green wrote: Creationism was only the beginning... :-( Announcement for Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: tshea...@collegeofidaho.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13545.bae00fb8b4115786ba5dbbb67b9b177an=Tl=tipso=4809 or send a blank email to leave-4809-13545.bae00fb8b4115786ba5dbbb67b9b1...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4810 or send a blank email to leave-4810-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Hey, wait a minute here. Why is that Italian, Galileo, getting credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for all of this business about a heliocentric universe? I thought that my Polish ancestor, Copernicus, was the one responsible for all of this rabble-rousing. If they're going to go off on a witch hunt or defamatory exploration, they should at least get the right victim. Geez! John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4811 or send a blank email to leave-4811-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Original Message - From: John Serafin john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:24:29 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Hey, wait a minute here. Why is that Italian, Galileo, getting credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for all of this business about a heliocentric universe? I thought that my Polish ancestor, Copernicus, was the one responsible for all of this rabble-rousing. If they're going to go off on a witch hunt or defamatory exploration, they should at least get the right victim. Geez! John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl=tipso=4811 or send a blank email to leave-4811-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4815 or send a blank email to leave-4815-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Ha! One of the things I have to love about TIPS is that even when I post something completely tongue-in-cheek, I can count on interesting and informative replies. Thanks, John K! I'll just add that Brahe Kepler did their thing after Copernicus, so I'll still attribute the idea to Copernicus. Personal aside...ignore if not interested. My grandparents all emigrated from Poland to the US. They all ended up in an area just west of Detroit. My dad's parents lived on a street that happened to go by the name of Kopernik. As a kid, I had no idea the significance of that name, but I eventually figured it out. John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu From: John Kulig ku...@mail.plymouth.edu Reply-To: TIPS posts tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:44:16 -0400 To: TIPS posts tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Original Message - From: John Serafin john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:24:29 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Hey, wait a minute here. Why is that Italian, Galileo, getting credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for all of this business about a heliocentric universe? I thought that my Polish ancestor, Copernicus, was the one responsible for all of this rabble-rousing. If they're going to go off on a witch hunt or defamatory exploration, they should at least get the right victim. Geez! John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl =tipso=4811 or send a blank email to leave-4811-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13290.c740a1ff47c2ee2e7bd7530f4853cbf0n=Tl =tipso=4815 or send a blank email to leave-4815-13290.c740a1ff47c2ee2e7bd7530f4853c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4816 or send a blank email to leave-4816-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
John Oh yeah, Detroit was a common place to end up ... all of mine went to Pennsylvania after they arrived (two of them Polish), another common destination because of the coal mines and factories. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Original Message - From: John Serafin john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:24:45 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Ha! One of the things I have to love about TIPS is that even when I post something completely tongue-in-cheek, I can count on interesting and informative replies. Thanks, John K! I'll just add that Brahe Kepler did their thing after Copernicus, so I'll still attribute the idea to Copernicus. Personal aside...ignore if not interested. My grandparents all emigrated from Poland to the US. They all ended up in an area just west of Detroit. My dad's parents lived on a street that happened to go by the name of Kopernik. As a kid, I had no idea the significance of that name, but I eventually figured it out. John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu From: John Kulig ku...@mail.plymouth.edu Reply-To: TIPS posts tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:44:16 -0400 To: TIPS posts tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Original Message - From: John Serafin john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:24:29 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Hey, wait a minute here. Why is that Italian, Galileo, getting credit (or blame, depending on your perspective) for all of this business about a heliocentric universe? I thought that my Polish ancestor, Copernicus, was the one responsible for all of this rabble-rousing. If they're going to go off on a witch hunt or defamatory exploration, they should at least get the right victim. Geez! John -- John Serafin Psychology Department Saint Vincent College Latrobe, PA 15650 john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl =tipso=4811 or send a blank email to leave-4811-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: john.sera...@email.stvincent.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13290.c740a1ff47c2ee2e7bd7530f4853cbf0n=Tl =tipso=4815 or send a blank email to leave-4815-13290.c740a1ff47c2ee2e7bd7530f4853c...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454n=Tl=tipso=4816 or send a blank email to leave-4816-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4817 or send a blank email to leave-4817
