@andy_176382 @RayLongstreet @Charmingman93 @DHaporth @thebritishertwi Both those statements are wrong. He and they both knew that he had not "disproved" anything and the scientific consensus was that he was wrong. That's partly because he *was* wrong about pretty everything, except the idea the sun was at the centre of the system. And that was ...
@andy_176382 @RayLongstreet @Charmingman93 @DHaporth @thebritishertwi ... still a flawed and disputed idea in 1632 and would remain so for decades after Galileo's death. The centrepiece of Galileo's argument was his argument from the tides, which was not only completely wrong but could be shown to be so definitively at the time. So he did not ...
@andy_176382 @RayLongstreet @Charmingman93 @DHaporth @thebritishertwi ... "disprove" anything. The consensus of science was solidly against him and everyone involved knew that, including Galileo.
He was also not "threatened with torture". He was in no danger of being tortured for multiple reasons: (i) he cooperated with the inquiry at all ...
He was also not "threatened with torture". He was in no danger of being tortured for multiple reasons: (i) he cooperated with the inquiry at all ...
@andy_176382 @RayLongstreet @Charmingman93 @DHaporth @thebritishertwi ... (ii) he had plenty of friends in the Papal court and the Inquisition itself who would have intervened if there was any danger of this and, most importantly, (iii) Galileo was too old and too sick to be allowed to be tortured under the Inquisition's own rules.
All this ...
All this ...
@andy_176382 @RayLongstreet @Charmingman93 @DHaporth @thebritishertwi ... aside, the Church consulted the scientists and upheld the scientific consensus against an unproven, flawed and rejected theory, so how is this "suppressing science"? Going with the scientific consensus is what a non-scientific body is meant to do. Were they supposed to ...
@andy_176382 @RayLongstreet @Charmingman93 @DHaporth @thebritishertwi ... see into the future and somehow discern that this consensus was going to be overturned later in the century? How would they do that?
And then there is the problem that you blurted your reference to this exceptional case in response to a discussion of the MEDIEVAL Church ...
And then there is the problem that you blurted your reference to this exceptional case in response to a discussion of the MEDIEVAL Church ...
@andy_176382 @RayLongstreet @Charmingman93 @DHaporth @thebritishertwi ... supposedly suppressing science. The Galileo case was centuries after the end of the medieval period.
You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.
