[Serious] Criticism of Aquinas' First Way or of the Proof of God from Motion.

[arewethereyet]

At work.

 *Reads BellAqua's post*

 *Reads post again...... A lot slower..... Carefully parsing the words.....*


   (0_o)    What, the actual, fek?

What specifically lacked actual fek?

This caught me off guard and I nearly spit my tea all over my laptop.  

Good job, that doesn't happen often enough.

[LadyForCamus]

A simple hide tag could have fixed that instead of deleting the entire thing.

I love it when I'm more reasonable than mods.

You’re free to hand your resume in at any time.

[Angrboda]

A simple hide tag could have fixed that instead of deleting the entire thing.

I love it when I'm more reasonable than mods.

You’re free to hand your resume in at any time.

Lady, Lady, Lady. You're not showing the proper deference to someone who is obviously a superior being.

[polymath257]

Granted, it's not simple. If he had published all his theories and observations as theory or thought experiments, with no reference to how this affected Bible interpretation, he probably would have avoided trouble. Pope Urban had been a friend and supporter and was willing to listen to reason, until Galileo's public challenges made this impolitic. From our modern point of view of course he should not have had to worry about politics -- science should be pure! -- but every era has its authorities which it is not wise to provoke. 

Let's put it this way: he could have done his science if he had done so in a more diplomatic way. This might have entailed more disclaimers or pretending that he was just thinking out loud. I agree that scientists shouldn't have to be skilled at diplomacy, but to get an audience and a hearing, they have to know the ropes, then and now. A modern scientist who insulted the people who employ and fund him might find himself out of a job fairly fast. Modern science depends on for-profit journals and funding from corporations and the Pentagon. These people may be better gatekeepers than the Vatican, but they show that science is not and never has been pure.

If Galileo had not named the proponent of the older view 'Simplicio' and linked it to the views of the people alive at the time and in power, he may well have been received better.

[brewer]

Granted, it's not simple. If he had published all his theories and observations as theory or thought experiments, with no reference to how this affected Bible interpretation, he probably would have avoided trouble. Pope Urban had been a friend and supporter and was willing to listen to reason, until Galileo's public challenges made this impolitic. From our modern point of view of course he should not have had to worry about politics -- science should be pure! -- but every era has its authorities which it is not wise to provoke. 

Let's put it this way: he could have done his science if he had done so in a more diplomatic way. This might have entailed more disclaimers or pretending that he was just thinking out loud. I agree that scientists shouldn't have to be skilled at diplomacy, but to get an audience and a hearing, they have to know the ropes, then and now. A modern scientist who insulted the people who employ and fund him might find himself out of a job fairly fast. Modern science depends on for-profit journals and funding from corporations and the Pentagon. These people may be better gatekeepers than the Vatican, but they show that science is not and never has been pure.

If Galileo had not named the proponent of the older view 'Simplicio' and linked it to the views of the people alive at the time and in power, he may well have been received better.

So your saying when the church/religion might be involved a person should speak in partial truths to not get in trouble. Got it.

[Belacqua]

If Galileo had not named the proponent of the older view 'Simplicio' and linked it to the views of the people alive at the time and in power, he may well have been received better.

Like if your research is funded by Elon Musk, you might not want to publish a play where the outdated position is propounded by Elon Stupidhead.

---

a person should speak in partial truths to not get in trouble. Got it.

Personally I'm in favor of speaking the full truth, which means giving up the popular myth about Galileo as ideological symbol and martyr.

[brewer]

a person should speak in partial truths to not get in trouble. Got it.

Personally I'm in favor of speaking the full truth, which means giving up the popular myth about Galileo as ideological symbol and martyr.

That's not what you said earlier.

"Let's put it this way: he could have done his science if he had done so in a more diplomatic way. This might have entailed more disclaimers or pretending that he was just thinking out loud."

[Belacqua]

Personally I'm in favor of speaking the full truth, which means giving up the popular myth about Galileo as ideological symbol and martyr.

That's not what you said earlier.

"Let's put it this way: he could have done his science if he had done so in a more diplomatic way. This might have entailed more disclaimers or pretending that he was just thinking out loud."

And immediately after that I said "I agree that scientists shouldn't have to be skilled at diplomacy." 

So you told a partial truth in order to misrepresent my views.

[The Grand Nudger]

No amount of being skilled at diplomacy would have mattered. The church was stuck in a jam. They knew they were wrong, and needed to find a way out, but they also knew that admitting as much before they found that new interpretation would damage perceptions of their authority.

He only had two choices, they were explicit, shut up or be shut up.

[brewer]

That's not what you said earlier.

"Let's put it this way: he could have done his science if he had done so in a more diplomatic way. This might have entailed more disclaimers or pretending that he was just thinking out loud."

And immediately after that I said "I agree that scientists shouldn't have to be skilled at diplomacy." 

So you told a partial truth in order to misrepresent my views.

No, I did a partial reading, you do sometimes blather on. I did not misrepresent your view.

And you did the same, used only half of my sentence.

Diplomacy has nothing to do with pretending, unless the diplomat is dishonest.