Re:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Allen Esterson]

A couple of points before this thread dies a natural death. :-)

Mike Smith wrote of Darwin:
>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

Darwin didn't start out religious in any serious sense. He was 
apathetic towards religious ideas (whereas his father and grandfather 
Erasmus were freethinkers), and accepted the tenets of Christianity as 
a young man without giving them much (if any) thought. Once he started 
to think about them in the light of his experience of natural science 
he rejected them.

>and his motivation for engaging in the
>study of the natural world could well
>have been a religious one.

I won't bore you with quotations demonstrating that religious ideas 
played zero role in Darwin's motivation for his life work, and that his 
passion for science and investigation were his motivations, apparent 
when he was still a young boy avidly collecting beetles.

Louis Schmier wrote:
>Newton, for example, felt that his greatest
>work was not the Mathamatica Principia, but
>his commentary on the Bible.

Do we know this for a fact? I know he wrote more on biblical exegesis 
than science (as he did on alchemy), but it doesn't necessarily follow 
he regarded the biblical exegesis as greater than his Principia. 
Einstein spent more time on his efforts (occupying much of the latter 
part of his life) to discover a unified field theory than on any other 
area of physics, but I very much doubt he would have said that these 
efforts constituted his greatest work.

Note I'm not saying that Louis is mistaken, only asking for evidence 
from Newton himself.

Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
allenester...@compuserve.com
http://www.esterson.org

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4951
or send a blank email to 
leave-4951-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] sleep

[don allen]

Hi All-

For those of you who teach about sleep there is a good video on line that talks 
about some of the recent research in this area & shows how important it is in 
learning.

http://fora.tv/2009/08/11/Matt_Walker_Secrets_of_the_Sleeping_Brain

or: http://tinyurl.com/kq89yj

-Don.

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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4944
or send a blank email to 
leave-4944-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Proofiness

[Mike Palij]

The NY Times website has a review of the book "Proofiness:
The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception" by Charles Seife
which some might find useful for courses in statistics and research
methods.  The review and an excerpt from the book are
available here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/books/review/Strogatz-t.html?_r=1&nl=books&emc=booksupdateema4

-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu



---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4943
or send a blank email to 
leave-4943-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Michael Smith]

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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4942
or send a blank email to 
leave-4942-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[don allen]

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 
Date: Friday, September 17, 2010 9:51 am
Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 

> 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=13157.966b795bc7f3ccb35e3da08aebe98f18&n=T&l=tips&o=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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4941
or send a blank email to 
leave-4941-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Paul Brandon]

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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4939
or send a blank email to 
leave-4939-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Allen Esterson]

Mike Palij wrote:
>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]

Dealing with the last part first, I have to say I'm not inclined to 
spend too much time investigating the ideas (even assuming I could 
begin to understand them) of someone who modestly says of himself:

"My book Cultural Foundations of Mathematics constructs a new 
philosophy of mathematics. Construction is always accompanied by 
destruction, and the book has destroyed not only the Western philosophy 
of mathematics, but incidentally also undermined most Western 
philosophy since the 12th c. Crusades."
http://drckraju.blogspot.com/2009/03/yellow-learned-journalism.html

Now to Whitaker and Poincaré: I've discovered in my wide reading around 
Einstein in recent years that the Whitaker issue is old hat. The 
eminent physicist Max Born wrote to Einstein that the mathematician 
Edmund Whitaker's second volume of his *History or the Theory of the 
Ether* (1955) "is peculiar in that Lorentz and Poincaré are credited 
with its [theory of relativity] discovery while your papers are treated 
as less important", and that he had tried to persuade his friend 
Whitaker that he was mistaken – to no avail.

Some big guns among historians of physics have since disputed 
Whitaker's view, for example, Gerald Holton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Holton

Holton writes: "If we examine Whitaker's analysis closely, it turns out 
to be an excellent example of a scholar's prior commitments and 
prejudgements." He goes on to discuss the issue over the next dozen 
pages to demonstrate how Whitaker misconceived the historical facts. 
(*Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought*, 1988, pp. 196-206)

Similarly, Abraham Pais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Pais) 
writes of Whitaker's treatment of the history of the special theory of 
relativity that it "shows how well the author's lack of physical 
insight matches his ignorance of the literature." (*Subtle is the Lord: 
The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein*, 1982, p. 168). Earlier 
Pais had devoted some fifteen pages discussing the "precursors" to the 
special theory of relativity, including Lorentz and Poincaré, showing 
that the latter two failed to take the decisive step that Einstein 
achieved in 1905.

More recently the French physicist Roger Cerf published "Dismissing 
renewed attempts to deny Einstein the discovery of special relativity", 
concluding:

"The method used to support the alleged prior rights consists of 
exaggerating the results obtained by Poincaré, results from which it 
*would have been possible* to infer special relativity. To do so, 
however, would have required doing what Einstein did—recognizing the 
physical nature of the connection that the principle of relativity 
brings about between space and time, and establishing this connection 
as a general law for all natural phenomena. Disregarding these 
necessary steps, which constitute the essence of relativity, makes it 
possible for the discovery of special relativity to be ascribed, as it 
were, *virtually* to Poincaré or to Lorentz and Poincaré."

Cerf also quotes the great physicist Louis de Broglie:

“It could therefore very easily have been Henri Poincaré, and not 
Einstein, who first developed the theory of relativity in all its 
generality, which would have attributed the honor of this discovery to 
French science.” However, “Poincaré did not take the decisive step. He 
left to Einstein the glory of having perceived all the consequences of 
the principle of relativity and, in particular, of having clarified 
through a deeply searching critique of the measures of length and 
duration, the physical nature of the connection established between 
space and time by the principle of relativity.”

http://tinyurl.com/2vrs58p

In a highly readable essay (2006), Andrzej Wróblewski of Warsaw 
University discusses the Whitaker claims:
http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol37/pdf/v37p0011.pdf
(Scroll down to subheading: 7 Einstein, Lorentz, and Poincaré)

Wróblewski writes in that section:
"Nowadays, in the age of internet, information noise is greater than 
ever. The number of amateurish texts which propagate distorted accounts 
of Einstein’s accomplishments over the World Wide Web has increased 
significantly on the occasion of the World Year of Physics. In some 
papers Einstein is even called a plagiarist. Thus, it seems proper to 
conclude this presentati

RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Marc Carter]

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.edu.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c90e1&n=T&l=tips&o=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.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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4936
or send a blank email to 
leave-4936-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Louis E. Schmier]

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.edu.

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13368.9b8fe41d7a9a359029570f1d2ef42440&n=T&l=tips&o=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.edu


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4934
or send a blank email to 
leave-4934-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[michael sylvester]

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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4931
or send a blank email to 
leave-4931-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Paul Brandon]

Newton was strongly deistic (he did feel that the ultimate force behind his 
empirical laws of motion was the hand of G_D), but hardly a Christian in the 
formal theological sense.
To attribute his physics to formal Christian theology (as Smith did) is to 
misread him.

Paul Brandon
Emeritus Professor of Psychology
Minnesota State University, Mankato
paul.bran...@mnsu.edu

On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Louis E. Schmier wrote:

>  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


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4930
or send a blank email to 
leave-4930-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Louis E. Schmier]

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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4929
or send a blank email to 
leave-4929-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

[tips] Mexican tipsters

[michael sylvester]

Enjoy the 200th anniversary celebrations.

Michael "omnicentric" 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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4927
or send a blank email to 
leave-4927-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

RE:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Mike Palij]

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 t

RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Marc Carter]

Just for the record, Newton was sort of an occultist.

It's been claimed that his ability to posit action-at-a-distance (gravitational 
attraction) was due entirely to his occult bent.  In those days, it would be 
heretical for any intelligent person to propose an effect not transmitted by 
contact.

So I don't think of him as deeply religious in the Christian sense.

There was a "natural theology" which aimed to reason about the characteristics 
or existence of god (or gods -- it's been around a long, long time) by means of 
observation and reason (e.g., St. Thomas's "proof" from motion, or design), but 
it wasn't aiming at understanding the world.  So if you consider the *method* 
of natural theology a precursor to modern science, I'll buy that.  The sad 
thing is that reason + observation/experience wasn't considered a valid way of 
coming to know by the mainstream Church until quite late -- 11th or 12th 
century -- due, I think in large measure, to Augustine's neo-platonic 
theology...

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 8:03 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> Subject: 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: marc.car...@bakeru.edu.
> To unsubscribe click here:
> http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72
a2d17c90e1&n=T&l=tips&o=4911
> or send a blank email to
> leave-4911-13029.76c7c563b32ad9d8d09c72a2d17c9...@fsulist.fros
tburg.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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4925
or send a blank email to 
leave-4925-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] In the good old days

[michael sylvester]

Stat texts included practice problems but the answers to the problems were 
not at the back pages of the text.The answers were printed in a separate 
booklet and only the prof had a copy of the answers.


Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD
Daytona Beach,Flori


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4924
or send a blank email to 
leave-4924-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[John Kulig]

 
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" 
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
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.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4923
or send a blank email to 
leave-4923-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Dr. Bob Wildblood]

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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4921
or send a blank email to 
leave-4921-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] In the good old days

[John Kulig]

My Mind,Brain,Evolution text has NO color photos (Linden's Accidental Mind), 
and costs about $20 used. I just told the class yesterday to know everything, 
and there are D grades. Three stat students stop in during my office hour 
almost daily ... am I stuck in a Twilight Zone time warp?? :-0 

==
John W. Kulig 
Professor of Psychology 
Plymouth State University 
Plymouth NH 03264 
==


- Original Message -
From: "michael sylvester" 
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 11:22:30 AM
Subject: [tips] In the good old days





In the good old days: 

Students came to see profs during office hours 
Profs had only one test taking tip "know everything" 
Text books had a few black and white photos,the rest was left to the 
imagination which further enhanced cognitive skills 
A "D" was an honorable grade 
Profs were not dishing out "A" grade like hot cakes 

What else? 

Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD 
Daytona Beach,Florida 



--- 

You are currently subscribed to tips as: ku...@mail.plymouth.edu . 

To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66454&n=T&l=tips&o=4845
 

(It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) 

or send a blank email to 
leave-4845-13338.f659d005276678c0696b7f6beda66...@fsulist.frostburg.edu 

---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org.
To unsubscribe click here: 
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4920
or send a blank email to 
leave-4920-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu

Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[John Kulig]

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" 
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" 
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=F1452.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=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 

[tips] Random Thought: Yom Kippur and Teaching

[Louis E. Schmier]

Ah, a cool, inviting 65 degrees this morning.  Well, the dark, pre-dawn 
streets are for me one of the most sustaining and invigorating spiritual places 
I know.  Power walking on the  asphalt outside gets me to my inside where I 
confront my faults, think of the ultimate goals of my life and work, remind 
myself of the core principles I want to live by and the values I wish to guide 
me, and see how I am doing so far.  I do all that not to change others, for 
that I know I cannot do; I do all that to change myself, for  that I  know I 
can do.  That place, reinforced by my randomly selected "word for the day," 
places my ideals unflinchingly before me and tells me the vision I have and the 
goals I strive toward. The fact that Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, that is 
coming upon us tonight only drives me deeper.   

The central prayer of Yom Kippur, what's called the Un'taneh Tokef, 
reminds us of our frailty, our mortality, and the painful uncertainty of living 
in the coming year.  Don't I know that.  I have had another year I feel I 
should not have had.  I've been granted a profound gift of plenty:  Susan, my 
sons, their wives, my grandmunchkins, my friends, my colleagues, my students.  
For each day, I am humbly grateful.  Why not.  After all, these High Holidays 
are  more of a looking to a coming year unplanned and of a time of "who knows 
what is to come."  Each day, then, is like a two-handled urn.  One handle is 
the anxiety of tomorrow.  The other handle is one of rejoicing today.  Now, it 
is difficult if you pick up the urn solely with one handle or the other.  The 
urn was designed to be lifted by both handles.  The urn and handles are 
metaphors for everything--everything--in life.  No one's professional or 
personal or social life is either all anxiety or all rejoicing because no one's 
life is that straight, smooth, uniform, and predictable.  It has inevitable 
obstructions, windings, dips, bumps, and bends, as well as ups and downs.  Life 
often hands us the unplanned, the unwanted, the unprepared for, the 
uncontrollable.  If you pick up the handle of anxiety, you will become too 
fearful and frustrated, maybe even resigned and cynical; everything will live 
up to your expectations, and you will experience overwhelming sadness and 
grief.  If you pick up the handle of joyousness, you'll become euphoric, 
dreamy; you will have your head in the clouds; you will totally idealize; 
nothing will live up to your expectations, and you'll become jaded..  But, if 
we pick up the urn as intended, we'll expect and accept the uncertain twists 
and turns of life.  How we deal with and adjust to the detours will determine 
our inner strength, the depth of our appreciation and gratitude, and the 
richness of our lives.  

There's a lasting lesson in Yom Kippur for us academics.  As academics 
we hold ourselves up as "masters of the answers;" we don't like ambiguity; we 
think we can control.  But, I say that the proclamations of "I am certain" or 
"I know how," the assertions of "I've got it" or "I'm there." close minds, shut 
eyes, and clog ears.  Such arrogant exclamation marks can be a deadly 
cholesterol that obstructs the heart; the finality of such periods can lock 
doors that both shut people in and shut people out.  The need to know, the 
drive to be sure, the desire to have the question answered, creates an 
unyielding, and often self-devouring pressurized quest for order that doesn't 
allow us to live patiently in the unanswered, unordered, and sometimes "you 
just don't ask" now.  We can't stand the "non-answer."  Maybe that is the crux 
of academia's problem:  all knowledge is prepared, that which we help students 
find has already been found; all experiences are prepared, for all experiences 
have been experienced; all problem solving is known, for all problems have been 
solved.  And yet, there is so much "yet to be" out there.  We prepare the 
students' orderly minds loaded with book learning; do we prepare their whole 
selves for the unknown, for the slings and arrows, for the ups and downs of 
disheveled living that will render their book learning obsolete?  

So, while I admit there may be a sense of uncomfortable and humbling 
powerlessness in uncertainty, there is also reassuring power.  Uncertainty can 
also mean living with grace and hope in the face "possibility," and exercising 
choices to convert possibility into actuality.
That is the courage to teach!  That is "spiritual heroism!"  Do you know what I 
mean?  It's not imposing control. It's not asserting authority.  It's not 
knowing.  It's not the answer.  It's not a guarantee.  It's not safety.  It's 
when you walk into that classroom, or anywhere for that matter, living 
gracefully and hopefully each new day in the face of unexperienced and 
uncontrolled "newness."   We mistakenly believe that good teaching equals 
riskless certainty. It does not and cannot. We think good teaching means 

Re:[tips] Galileo Was Wrong?

[Allen Esterson]

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=F1452.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=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 
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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4917
or send a blank email to 
leave-4917-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu