Tofspot

the catholic church has traditionally been pro-science, the contrast with science is a modern development. There's a ton of Catholic clergy who were scientists[0], many of those well known (Mersenne, Mendel, Copernicus, Venturi etc). Even the epitome of the science-church conflict, the Galileo story, started from a scientific disagreement before the religious one[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marin_Mersenne [0] https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.htm…

I found this series to be a great read on some of the history of Galileo and the status of scientific understanding at the time I believe part of it has made the rounds on hn before: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tabl…

Also worth reading on this subject: The great Ptolemaic smackdown (https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tab…

There is a wonderful (if lengthy) takedown of the "Brave scientist Galileo vs Catholic Church" myth here: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.h…

Just addressing the Galileo part, but as was recently linked in hackernews [1][2], Galileo was wrong (in the sense that he was arguing for an already discredited theory, and that the theory he was arguing against was also already discredited). Using Galileo as the standard of the suppression of free thought is sorta painting the Church as overzealously standing up for good science, not highlighting the Church as an enemy of truth. 1. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.h… 2. https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/galileo%E2%80%99s-great-bluff-…

The able of contents for the entire weblog post series is at: * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tab…

The link the OP submitted is the last of a 9-part series of posts. Here's a table of contents for the site author's posts on this topic: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/search?q=Great+Ptolemaic+Smackdown

My "interpretation" of the situation comes mostly from http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html Have you read this perspective before? Is it a well known "oh not this again" incorrect source in the world of renaissance italy theology and history?

Here is a great write-up on the subject of the transition to the heliocentric model: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tab… One key element is that heliocentric models where just not as good at making predictions. It took new data for them to finally get to a dominating position.

> Copernican revolution The guy who did the hard work was Kepler. Copernicus's model of the solar system was just idle speculation. Also widely off the mark (it had epicycles, lots of thyem, twice as many as the Ptolemaic model [1]). Kepler sifted through the mountains of astronomical observations made by Tycho Brahe over many decades, and used the latest cutting edge math tools available (logarithms) to come up with his 3 laws. The true revolution is science was obviously Isaac Newton. But if he had some giants on whose shoulders to stand, they were Kepler and Brahe, not Galileo and Copernicus. [1] http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

Galileo didn't really do a good job of proving the heliocentric view though. His advocacy of it was based more on aesthetics than observations. There was a great look at this in an article called "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown and Down 'n Dirty Mud-Wrassle" in the Jan/Feb 2013 issue of Analog. The author has an expanded version on his blog here [1]. [1] http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

There's an interesting series called the Great Ptolemaic Smackdown that charts one of the more prominent examples (i.e., the Copernican/Galilean revolution): https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.htm…

> When I wrote to remind him that Plato briefly discussed atheists in The Laws, implying that atheism among young adults was common […] Being an "atheist" then may not have meant the same thing as what being an atheist now means: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Classical_antiquity Aristotle for one did not believe in the traditional pantheon that we associate with Ancient Greece, but certainly did believe in the Unmoved Mover; or, probably more actually label Unactualized Actualizer: * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/07/first-way-some-background.html * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/08/first-way-moving-tale.html

If you have a few hours to kill, page through this: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.htm…

As supplementary reading material (more to do with Galileo's character rather than competence), I highly recommend the series of articles [1] entitled "The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown", which provides a great deal of historical, political and scientific context for Galileo's actions and legacy. [1]: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

The best source which I've read that corrects the myths behind the Galileo affair was written by science-fiction author Michael F. Flynn. The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tab…

Ptolemaic cosmology was hardly a bad idea. It was the simplest model that fit the available evidence for a long time. The Heliocentric model didn't really make sense until Newton's theory of gravitation was developed. https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tab…

You should read more about Gallileo. He was wrong in many ways, and it's entirely likely that he was punished for his tendency to be a jerk as much as anything else. Actually, the analogy isn't half bad, come to think... http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

I am very sorry, but not mention or discussion of Galileo on this site is complete without a mention of the great ptolemaic smackdown [1]. If you have about 4 hours worth of your time (even in installments) it is deeply recommended. 1: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html

"The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown" [0] also provides information to this effect. Yes, as the link you provide mentions, there's an optical phenomenon known as the Airy disk that suggests an incorrect apparent size of stars when looking through such old telescopes. It wasn't until the 1800s that this phenomenon was understood. [0] http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html (part 1)

Sure, look for The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown[1]. It's about the same period but in much finer detail, more accurate, and much more entertaining to read. [1] http://tofspot.blogspot.ch/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-table…

The best article I know if http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tabl… As mentioned by another user below. The story in that link is really a great read. However, I'm unable to tell you how accurate or complete that account is.

Mike Flynn has a very long and detailed story of Galileo and more generally geocentrism vs. heliocentrism at http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tabl… Among the things I learned: * The Copernican model had more epicycles than the Ptolemaic * Galileo thought tides were caused by those same epicycles.

I read through this a while back and it is an interesting exploration of the whole Geocentric/Heliocentric dust-up (or smackdown as they call it): http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-tabl…

@namarie got it right. Per Part 3 in the series: In the second episode, we saw a slew of new telescopic discoveries during 1610-1611; viz., the mountains on the moon, the Medicean stars, and (more decisively) the phases of Venus. Now the first two do not demonstrate geomobility, not do they undermine geostationarity. The first indicates that the moon is not incorruptible. But this is agreed to by theology, and it undermines only Aristotelian physics. The second indicates that some heavenly bodies -- Cosmo, Franco, Carlo, and Lonzo -- circle Jupiter and not the Earth. This bothers Aristotelian physicists, but not Tychonic astronomers. Only the phases of Venus KOs Old Man Ptolemy. But eliminating Ptolemy does not prove Copernicus any more than eliminating Darwin would prove ID. There may be [and were!] other alternatives. When Ptolemy was ptossed, astronomers flocked... to the Tychonic and Ursine systems -- because none of the telescopic observations have so far established the motions of the Earth. * http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-grea… In Part 2 Flynn outlines the seven major models in play: * Heraclidean. Geo-heliocentric. Mercury and Venus circle the Sun; everything else circles the Earth. * Ptolemaic. Geocentric, stationary Earth. * Copernican. Heliocentric, pure circles with lots of epicycles. * Gilbertian. Geocentric, rotating Earth. (proposed by William Gilbert in De magnete) * Tychonic. Geo-heliocentric.…

I'm not trying to be facetious, but: Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. Is something I'm skeptical about (if we all end up learning something here, I'll definitely appreciate the irony ... also I'm happier with your "a core" than I would be if you had said "the core"). Anyway, I just got done reading [1] and found it interesting that Galileo's biggest advantages as a scientist were that he could grind a lens and being trained as an artist (so he had a good idea what he was looking at when he looked at the moon). [And probably also being really witty so he could make friends at parties and impress his financial backers.] Also: Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. This is something I would love a proof for (being a little bit facetious this time, but a proof for this would actually be really useful for some of my purposes). I took several history of science and technology courses at university and the impression I got was that the most important aspects of being a scientist was messing around with technology, taking notes, and having a lot of time to sit around and think. [Having some sort of rival who was also doing teh science whom you really wanted to show up seems to be a bonus.] Being willing to be disappointed when you're proved wrong seems a lot more useful than only believing things you have proof for. In fact believing something without proof seems like a great way to get started on something very…

I mean, we actually know that not only was there pitifully little scientific advancement during that period (especially as you point out in the first half), but that science and technology regressed massively and entire fields were completely forgotten. For example, there was a gap of over a thousand years before anybody could build large domes again, and even then it had to be completely reinvented. Like a few commenters here, you're confusing the dark ages and the middle ages. You can quibble over semantics and say that the middle ages includes the dark ages, but that obscures the point of the original post. The standard narrative of Western intellectual progress looks like this: ~300BC to ~400AD: classical civilisation, high intellectual culture ~400AD to ~1500AD: Europe under the dominion of the Church, science and reason suppressed ~1500AD: bam, Renaissance ~1700AD: bam, Enlightenment ~1700AD - present: humanity freed from the yoke of religion, knowledge flowers again. The revisionist view is as follows: ~300BC to ~400AD: classical civilisation, high intellectual culture ~400AD to ~1000AD: Europe in the dark ages due to barbarian invasions, underpopulated and poor, classical tradition barely kept alive in monasteries ~1000AD to ~1400AD: Europe begins to get wealthier, knowledge flowers in Church-sponsored universities ~1600AD: bam, Protestant Reformation ~1600AD - present: science builds on knowledge and philosophy developed by Catholic church, but…

> That's a lot of presumptions: That the creator is perfect, there is even a perfect, what I (Leibniz) call perfect is the god's/gods' perfect, ... while not giving a frame of reference. The Creator (First Mover) being perfect is not a presumption, but rather a conclusion; see Corollary 1.3: * https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-cascades.html (You'll need to go through the series of weblog posts (they're not that long) to get the full logic of the argument.) See also perhaps Aquinas, "Whether God is perfect?": * https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1004.htm

If you're actually interested in Hypatia you can read this series... http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2015/02/hypatia-part-i-mean-streets-of-old…

Well, science came a long way in general. There were a number of objections to Galileo's ideas that were not religiously motivated. See The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown, in 9 parts, a must read! Part 1: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html Part 2: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-down… Part 3: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-grea… Part 4: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-down… Part 5: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-here… Part 6: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/6-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-comet.… Part 7: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/09/7-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-time-a… Part 8: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/8-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-trial-… Part 9: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smackdown-from.h…