tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post2685539986917419671..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Galileo, Bruno, and the InquisitionStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-4175669277571312022012-03-11T15:16:18.393+00:002012-03-11T15:16:18.393+00:00The Vatican seems to have deleted/censored the onl...The Vatican seems to have deleted/censored the online document to which you referred regarding Bruno. Do you have another URL that links to a copy of it? Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12464834043492594142007-07-17T09:49:00.000+00:002007-07-17T09:49:00.000+00:00Hi Rev SamYou raise an interesting point, but what...Hi Rev Sam<BR/><BR/>You raise an interesting point, but what is its relevance to the issue here? Are you drawing a conclusion?<BR/><BR/>The issue I am discussing, remember, is: was Galileo was indeed hauled before the inquisition for his scientific views (though no doubt his comments on the interpretation of scripture etc. would have provoked ire too)?<BR/><BR/>And was he shown the instruments of torture and imprisoned for life for , among other things, daring to claim the heliocentric model was literally true?<BR/><BR/>The answer is "yes" twice, isn't it?<BR/><BR/>True, G was wrong about some things, and some of his arguments were faulty. And yes he could be less than tactful, and indeed rather insulting. Possibly he had bad breath too. Conservative Catholics love to point these things out. But this is all smoke-screen.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that, whether or not G's scientific position was fully justified, and indeed whether or not he was a cantankerous old git, the Catholic Church did ban him from expressing it, and then did threaten him with torture and imprison him for life for continuing to express it. It was wrong to do so.<BR/><BR/>Those are the facts that some Catholics (like McAvearey) simply deny, while others attempt to excuse or obscure by bang on about G's lack of proof, his disagreeable personality traits, etc.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37744844683090761262007-07-17T09:08:00.000+00:002007-07-17T09:08:00.000+00:00Have you read Feyerabend's account of the Galileo ...Have you read Feyerabend's account of the Galileo conflict? (In 'Farewell to Reason') I find this quotation of especial interest, taken from a letter to Galileo from Cardinal Bellarmino: "If there were any real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe and that the earth is in the third heaven, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth around the Sun, then we would have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true". What's often forgotten is that the heliocentric paradigm had not yet been 'proven' - as it assumed perfectly circular orbits, rather than elliptical ones. The Ptolemaic paradigm was more accurate, and therefore more "scientific" at the time.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.com